So Brett, now its global warming minus the antartic? I like how they can manipulate their story to such a crazy extent and still have people buying into it. Next they will be trying to convince people to pay a tax everytime they release greenhouse gases from, well, you know. (Just trying to keep G rated.)

Greenland's ice sheet is predicted to be almost gone by the end of the century

Most of the ice sheet never gets above freezing. The central portions average 20 degrees below freezing during the warmest month of the year. These people have gone completely over the deep end.

Note, how far below normal the sea ice coverage area is now.

Like I said before, check back in three weeks. It will be close to normal.

As a believer in most AGW theory, let me get on record as saying that I am very surprised at this. We have consitantly heard that AGW effects would be felt most at the poles, both poles. We on here have noted before that the lack of warming in Antarctica is a discrapcny between the AGW theory and real observation, and need to be explained if we were to continue to accept AGW theory. All of a sudden now, Antartica will be "spared." I have a feeling that Patrick Henry is going to blow a gasket.

What does the Antarctic neutral or slowly increasing ice coverage mean to sea level rise? Will the rise not be as great as earlier IPCC projections? At any rate, those of us who've been keeping up with the science of a warming planet already knew that the Antarctic was not warming much, if at all. Plus, regrding the Arctic's record low sea ice, didn't NASA say in its Artcic sea ice report that the main cause was an abnormally high number of clear days and a rare wind that blew the sea ice into warmer waters to melt? If these conditions don't materialize again next summer, could even the Arctic sea ice slow its' melting somewhat?

Boy, what changes 7 months can bring. Not even a peep about Artic devestation in the SPM last Winter and Spring, and viola: disaster! The IPCC is obviously reacting to poltical pressure as well as weather events. Yet, other than CO2, they can offer no viable explaination as to why one pole's ice caps are losing ice and another gaining ice. To me, it appears this august body of "experts" have little confidence in thier prognostications. They will continue to react to extreme weather events, and use whatever events are the focur of the public's imagination at the time. Two years ago it was tropical storms. A decade ago it was droughts and floods. For now it is artic ice.

Brett, it is highly unlikely that the IPCC will predict loss of the Greenland ice sheet by the end of the century. The data to make such a prediction doesn't exist. It is possible that they will say that a substantial partial collapse of the GIS cannot be excluded. A complete collapse by 2100 is very unlikely since the northern portion would tend to persist beyond that date even if the southern part goes (recalling that the climate in the south is quite different from the climate in the north since Greenland is about 1600 miles long). Reply: I agree Steve, just relaying what the article stated.

A partial collapse by 2100 would raise sea level by several meters, which I think would constitute a catastrophe by any reasonable definition of the term. Bear in mind also that the main threat to the West Antarctic ice sheet (which is grounded below sea level) is instability resulting from the GIS-induced sea level rise. It's unlikely that the rise would occur enough before 2100 to do much to the WAIS by that date, although 2200 might be a different story.

All of that said, I'm also curious to see of the synthesis report has anything to see about the now near-certain short-term (by 2050) loss of the Tibetan-area glaciers, which will create a water supply crisis with immense socio-economic implications. (It may well not since this is a subject the Chinese government prefers to not have discussed in public.) We may not care at all what happens to our great-grandchildren in 2100, but many people alive now will get to experience the Tibetan melt crisis. The politicians who lacked the foresight to do anything about it will be safely dead, though.

cb, bear in mind that major changes in Antarctica by 2100 have never been thought likely (although the possibility of sonething happening to the WAIS cannot be excluded, as discussed above). One point of confusion is that the Antarctic Pensinsula (the bit that sticks up toward South America) is undergoing sharp changes, but it really needs to be considered seaparately from the main part of the continent.

I wish Brett would learn enough about climate science to filter some of this stuff a bit better, but OTOH I suppose I should just be grateful they don't have Bastardi running this blog.

***** Trends tell us a lot, and there may be the beginning of a trend as far as the A-G-W acronym is concerned.
***** For some time many in climate science have questioned the "A", arguing that it is small or non-existent. Now, courtesy of the IPCC, there is reason to believe that the "G" is no longer applicable, since they are effectively saying "except for Antarctica". And if some solar physicists are right -- namely, that the end of solar cycle 23 may be delayed by as much as 1.5 years, and that SC24 and SC25 may both be of the Dalton type -- the "W" will go away on its own.
***** If that happens, I suspect that there will still be some in the alarmist camp who will find a way to say that global cooling is just the cold phase of global warming (as well as some in the skeptics camp who will gloat just a little bit too much). I'd be happy to apologize for my poor judgement if that turns out not to be true.

cmbclean,

Why should I be upset? The IPCC is falling on their own sword. If next summer's arctic melt doesn't do anything spectacular, even their die hard fans will start to doubt them. The borg is showing signs of disruption.

The Greenland melting prediction is a classic example of people starting to believe their own marketing BS after repeating it too many times. In order for the ice sheet to melt in the next hundred years, it would have to go from zero melt to 100 feet of melting per year. It is 10,000 feet thick.

How can you possibly melt 100 feet of snow per year at high altitude and latitude? July temperatures are currently 11F. Greenland would have to warm up at least forty or fifty degrees in the next few years. How stupid can they get?

Reply: Maybe the Telegraph got their info screwed up. It would have been nice to hear who their source was.

I will be very very surprised if the IPCC actually states that most of Greenland ice sheet is expected to be gone by the end of the century.

Greenlands ice sheet is equivalent to about 23 feet of sea level. So, if most of it were to melt that would imply over 12 feet, which would be staggering.

While we know that the Greenland ice sheet is melting, so far the rate of melt is very slow and amounts to less than a inch of sea level rise over the next century.

However, what many people do not realize is that Greenland is not a single large island. Instead, it is a series of small islands with a large ice cap in the center. This is significant because as the ice sheet starts to melt, ice burg calving and the subsequent transport of ice out of Greenland could potentially become much more significant than the actual melting of the ice cap.

Just as we are witnessing with Arctic sea ice, melting is one thing, but when ocean currents move the ice out of the area, warming can occur much faster than it would otherwise.

Having said all this, I'd like to make it clear that I am not buying into 12 feet of sea level rise this century. More study is needed before such a conclusion can be made. However, if there is a rapid acceleration with Greenland melting, then expect all types of calls for controlling CO2 levels.

Reply: Again, I wonder if the author of the article got his info wrong.

There isn't even a good case for co2 induced melting of the Arctic according to NASA...
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
The "unusual atmospheric conditions" they're talking about are the Arctic Oscillation and North Atlantic Oscillation both being in positive phase right now as they have been for many years. Gawd, could the case for AGW get any weaker?

Andrew,

There has never been any conclusive study showing that Greenland is net losing ice. The interior is gaining ice. Some parts of the periphery are losing ice. No one knows what the net balance is.

According to an NOAA study you quoted, 56% of Greenland never sees any melting. Greenland averages 1m of snow per year. Therefore, most of Greenland must be accumulating ice.

The underlying geology of Greenland is irrelevant to melting. Whether the rock surface is above or below sea level makes no difference when separated from the ocean by 500 miles.

I suspect the Telegraph got the Greenland story correct. Hansen has been talking about 10m sea level rise this century. Why wouldn't the IPCC fall in line with their guru?

Steve Bloom,

YOur point is taken. About the Antarctic Penninsula. I have read about the significant warming going on there. But I had also heard where that particular area of changes wasn't thought to be caused so much my AGW, but by a multi-decadal shift in weather pattersaround that area, unrealted to CO2. I'm not a climate scientist, so I'll defer to you on this, but I kind of assume that the circumpolar current had shifted somewhat to the south over the last few decades.

Hi Steve Bloom,

Ah, the Antarctic Peninsula. Are you talking about the bright red spot sitting on top of the active volcano again?
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/ANTARCTIC/TRENDS/IMAGES/annual.trend.1958-2002.gif

Do you really think it is possible to have an isolated hot spot sitting on a very small peninsula surrounded by cooler water? What could be the source of the heat? A carbon dioxide cloud who has a personal grudge against Larsen?

With the IPCC facing accusations of fraudulently misrepresenting the surface temperature record, Insiders calling it too corrupt to save and calls for its complete demise, could this be a last desperate hail Mary toss?
Since temperatures have leveled off and seas have shown no unusual rise, the AGW hypotheses seems to be on its last legs.
Paper after paper now illustrates other natural causes for the small warming since the LIA. Indeed, recent indicators now show an impending cooling trend.
So, one must ask, are the scientists of the IPCC really that stupid?
I doubt it.
Several hundred climate scientists could not all be so completely deluded.
The only realistic scenario is that they were all sold on some noble political cause to reshape the societies of the world.
We know that was the motivation of the Kyoto architects.
We shall see. And, it would seem, very soon too.

Don't forget to watch this:
This set of videos are a MUST see.
Really excellant.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/04/global-warming-tutorial-media-should-be-required-watch

ClaudeC, while one constantly hears that "many" climate scientists question the dominant influence of anthropogenic influences on the present warming trend, what's interesting is that one doesn't seem to hear it from the scientists themselves. Don't believe everything you hear.

Regarding solar trends, you may be interested in this.

The currents carrying deep water to the southern hemisphere have been weakened by AGW. Major currents have slowed down as much as 35% in little more than a decade. As a result the load is taking longer to pass through the Southern Ocean, the deep water current is efficiently cooling more water and keeping Antarctica cooler between winters.
Is there a Pacific Ocean current that pumps cool water south as well?

The bigger expance of southern seas are cooled for longer than the Arctic, which has stabilised temperatures at the South Pole.

atmospheric co2 is just an insulator anyway Isnt the co2 just keeping the SH icebox cooler?

While at the arctic, the surface absorbs more warmth and as disappearing ice on rock or in warmer seas no longer reflects the warmth of summer rays, ice turns to more water lubricating ice flows and freeing more rock or more sea while the co2 keeps the temperature increase regular.

The effects of global warming may not be seen as either warm or uniform; both poles will remain very cold compared with the equator. We have witnessed the first major signs of GW at opposite ends of the globe and not surprisingly the signs are opposite.

This is about as surprising as finding out that in autumn it gets colder or that Arctic ice forms in winter. Who but the deniers would point out that late autumn and early winter temperatures at the poles are cold?

I hear that the polar bears are going to be ok. A self taught juvenile was observed catching fish the other day, by splashing about in a river estuary like a brown bear. Now if we can just plant eucalypts in the permafrost and teach them to eat leaves, the polar bears could eventually become the Koalas of the Tundra.
The koalas are dying here from the spread of diseases as they congregate in close quarters in limited forest areas to feed on the few remaing trees that survived last years heatwaves and drought.

"Here is the latest sea ice anomaly chart (1979-current) from the Arctic region, courtesy of the Polar Research Group. Note, how far below normal the sea ice coverage area is now."

But the point is, what is normal? OK, its below normal compared to the last 30 years, but so what? Thats nothing! Is it below normal compared to the 1930's? Is it below compred to the last 100 hundred years? How does it compare to the Medievil warm period? Scientist's have got all these brilliant new toys to play with; but they just don't have enough long-term (and by long term I'm talking at the very least hundreds of years, and preferably thousands of years) data to be able to make any meaningful use of all the toys at their disposal.
I will go further and say that scientist's are going WAY beyond their remit, in turning possibilites into facts, and changing the facts to suit their case and by not just simply stating facts, but also demanding fundamental change of western civilization; If this whole theory goes t*ts-up over the nect 20-30 years, science will find itself in an unparalled crisis, with the media and politicans who once lapped up all these doom-laden disaster scenario's, turning on the very community that decided to go beyond their remit in the first place. I sense a dark time to come for the scientific community.

Simon dear,

Your imagination seems to be nearly as unconstrained as the IPCC when it comes to adapting to facts on the ground. Great quotes, and no more irrational than predictions of Greenland melting. Please keep it coming, we all need entertainment.

Isnt the co2 just keeping the SH icebox cooler?

We have witnessed the first major signs of GW at opposite ends of the globe and not surprisingly the signs are opposite.

the polar bears could eventually become the Koalas of the Tundra.

As far as I can see from the information so far provided, the report doesn't say that temperatures in the antarctic are NOT rising, just that the thickness and volume of ice means that the Antarctic region will not immediately change.

Far too early to draw any concrete conclusions on this yet - not that that would ever stop anybody..

Climate change is like 'World War Three'

The battle to deal with climate change needs to be fought like "World War Three", the head of the (UK) Environment Agency has warned.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/05/eaclimate105.xml

Good point. They should get the tanks out and blast commuters off the motorway. That will stop the bastards from emitting CO2. In WWII it was lights out in London every night to confuse the Luftwaffe bombers. Bring back those days!

And most importantly we must raise taxes. Remember "Loose lips sink ships" Shut down the skeptics on this blog, and replace them with good people who support the war effort.

The IPCC will surly have another excuse why the earth isn’t behaving like the models say it should!
Don’t cha’ just hate it when the Earth shows whose is in charge???

Gary,
A very interesting slide show. Obviously this will not be picked up by the mainstream media or even highlighted on this blog. -Brett- What's your take on this?
I would challenge all the AGW Zealots to view all four parts of the lecture.
Starting with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

The Mantra of AGW is wearing a bit thin.
I await the righteous and vociferous response by the AGW cult. Andrew- This may be a tipping point. The good Professor Bob Carter makes many excellent points. Save the world, save the IPCC,refute this heretic using science. Just don't use marginalization or character assassination, that's bad form.

According to Hansen, over the last ten years, the Canadian Arctic has cooled by as much as 8 degrees.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2007&month_last=09&sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=1997&year2=2006&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg

Over the last 30 years, Alaska has shown almost no warming. Half of the cities in Alaska have cooled during that period.
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/7706Change.html

Sounds like a serious Arctic meltdown.