Scientists claim planet is heading for 'irreversible' climate change by 2040

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland/Scientists-claim-planet-is-heading.5515749.jp

since the models are always off and the climate feedback loop is happening faster than expected...

we are the frog in the boiling water - and it is just about to fry us

nice to think that my kids will have a global dust bowl and water shortages and all that wonderful hell that goes along with it...

:banghead:

Whats the worst is that these reports have been coming out for a long time - and NOTHING changes.
if we could all figure out how to get off the grid, would it make a difference?
if we each grew food and planted x-amount of trees?
if we stopped driving right NOW?

ya... it should've happened years ago.
Here's another IF -
if Al Gore had gotten to serve as President...would we be here? (that one alone could make my head explode)

now if you will excuse me I have energy to consume and CO2 to add to the atmosphere...

crap... :cry:

of discoveries to reverse it if possible because we are so beyond that.

I'm thinking we're on track for "wetter" for this year....

I just checked the almanac at the http://www.wunderground.com/history/">Weather Underground, and we're actually slightly below average for the year-to-date. However, "When it rains, it pours!"

We need to look now at controlling the damage done. It isn't going to be pretty.

.

We can act now to try to limit the damage. Or, we can just throw up our hands, and surrender ourselves to "fate."

Seriously these constant stories of an Armageddon just around the corner only serve to desensitize the average person and make skeptics like me laugh.

Last week we had Hansen (recycled from January) giving Obama 4 years to save the world and most posters agreed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x202915

Now we have other scientists claiming we have 31 years. Which is it? If we have such a strong consensus and the science is settled why the difference?

Actually they didn't even say that. This is what they said:

In their paper, Brierley and Kingsford said that a carbon dioxide level of 450 ppm was the critical threshold beyond which catastrophic and irreversible change might occur.

"By 2040, some particularly sensitive marine ecosystems such as coral reefs and ice-covered polar seas could already have been lost and other unexpected consequences may arise."

"You can say no Arctic sea ice by 2020 – really, really soon. Certainly no summer sea ice in the Arctic by 2020."

"Might occur", "may arise", "really, really soon".

In other words they're saying nothing. If it doesn't happen they can say "We never said it would. We said it might!"

It reminds me of the predictions you get from late night radio.

We established long ago, you're a nutcase denier.

There are numerous studies predicting we have 5, 10, 20, 30 years left before climate change becomes irreversible based on current models. What none of the studies' authors argue about is the fact that things will get worse; all they debate now is how long we have left and just how bad it will be.

There are studies and scientists who don't think that anything significant is happening and others that think that the science is fatally flawed. I admit that there aren't as many, but since when has science been a majority rules thing?

If nothing significant is happening then there are no predictions to make, good or bad, and certainly no headlines. Science by headlines is not science. Often the scientists themselves don't hype things but phrase statements knowing that the reporters will hype them for them. The article linked above is a good example. The headline practically reads "We're All Going to Die!" and that's what most people read but that's not what the scientists said. Maybe they should demand a correction of the story but that never seems to happen.

Then there are the personal attacks from both sides. Once again, why do personal attacks substitute for science?

On July 24th Real Climate referred to a peer reviewed study in JGR (Journal of Geophysical Research) study as "atrocious", a "hyped press-release" and "rubbish". This is opposed to the normally calm, non panic mongering press-releases that they do.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/friday-round-up-3/

The paper was published exactly one day earlier. It didn't take long to launch an attack did it?

By the way, NSIDC released ice Sea Ice Extent for July 2009 either today or yesterday. Their data only goes back to November 1978 but it shows that The July Arctic sea ice was 8.8 million sq km. That's the third least in the 31 year history. The July Antarctic sea ice was 16.6 million sq km. That tied it (with three others) for ninth most (20th least) in the same 31 year history. Overall July 2009 sucks with a total of 25.4 million sq km putting it in a 4 way tie for the third least (26th most) July. One good thing about it is that ice is only about 3% below average. We don't know if 3% is significant or not. Another hopeful thing is that there should be more multi-year ice in the Arctic then last year. Hopefully the 2009 minimum will be more then 2008 which was more then 2007.

The long-term trend indicates a decline of 6.1% per decade in July ice extent since 1979, relative to the 1979 to 2000 average, an average of 62,000 square kilometers (24,000 square miles) of ice per year.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The 1979 - 2000 mean Antarctic is 16.4 million sq km compared to the Arctic's 10.1 million sq km. The larger size partially lowers the combined trend. The links main page doesn't have a global option.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

Your source however is, in my opinion, another example of fear mongering by science. NSIDC has a page devoted to the Arctic where ice is melting but doesn't have one devoted (I could be wrong) to the Antarctic where ice is stable or even gaining.

Even the timing of the updates is interesting to me. If you look at 2008 they updated it 15 times on 04/07, 05/05, 06/03, 07/02, 07/17, 08/01, 08/11, 08/25, 08/26, 09/04, 09/16, 09/24, 10/02, 11/10 and 12/03. Typically ice maxes out in March and is the least in September. That means that they updated it 9 times during the melt season and 3 times during the ice formation season. Shouldn't ice formation be as interesting scientifically as melting ice?

October 2008 saw the highest October gain in the 30 year record (second overall) and it was described as "particularly fast" gaining 3.7 million sq km. February 1988 is number one overall at 4.1. Now with only 30 years of history that may be reasonable but August 2008 was described as "record rate of ice loss" at 3,0 million sq km. In fact it was tied with 2002 for the greatest August loss. July 2007 was number one at 3.4. Why the different language and why didn't they bother to mention 2002?

I don't dispute that we've lost ice over the last 30 years nor do I dispute that it is, over all, warmer then it was 30 years ago. What I question is how much is man's fault and how much is natural variation.

In a previous thread I pointed out that the current sea level rise is about half of what it has averaged for the last 20,000 years or so and therefor I thought that what we are seeing is not unusual. I was told that averages can be deceiving. I agree about looking at a short term such as claiming that because 2008 had more ice then 2007 we're going into an ice age but 20,000 years?