If arctic ice is melting 3x faster than climate models predict, is 'alarmist' an accurate term?

Question

"Arctic Ocean sea ice is melting faster than even the most advanced climate change models predict, a new study concludes.

{...}

The team found that, on average, 18 climate models used in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underestimated the extent of sea-ice decline by a factor of three."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070501-arctic-ice.html

So if the IPCC climate scientist predictions underestimate the rate of arctic ice melting by a factor of 3, how exactly is it accurate to call them 'alarmist'?

Vlad, if the models are inaccurate, it's because they're too conservative! You're proving my point. In the words of Stephen Colbert, I accept your surrender.

Grizz - true (though to be accurate, it's 'Latent Heat'). For water the Latent Heat of Fusion is 334 J/g, and the specific heat capacity of liquid water is 4.18 J/g-K. There's your factor of 80, but fortunately there's a whole lot more liquid water in the oceans than ice to absorb all that energy.

Tomcat - thanks for admitting I have a point. I accept your surrender as well.

http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/environment/sea_ice.html

Answer 1

Jello says they're alarmist, so they're alarmist!

I eat Jello for breakfast!

Answer 2

Ah yes. I pre-empted the maxbushian foaming at the mouth response to this study a few days ago with a question of my own. The point is the models WERE based on real world information, all that was available at the time they were produced. The new info now reduces some of the uncertainty in the previous study by improving parameters relating to salinity and melt rates. It will be incorporated into a new model, which will be more accurate than the last one. Or perhaps you think nobody should bother with another model maxbushian? Because models are big and hard and scary and you just don't understand how they work so they should all just be scrapped right?

Answer 3

You're worried about a 3x. What about the 8x in the Rose Ice Shelf a few years back? And the GRACE findings that the net global glaciers have registered a record decrease of mass.

If 3x is an alarmist, then 8x must be a correctist.

Mr. Jello:
In case you haven't noticed but it's currently winter in antarctica, which loses all of its heat regardless of greenhouse gasses, and thus still gains ice regardlessly. So the rate of ice gain is currently increasing, but is still less than annual loss.

Answer 4

I guess that is the last time you will ever use climate models as evidence for warming since you have just proven them to be completely unreliable. What is the problem with Artic Ice melting in summer anyway, besides Polar Bears? It won't raise sea levels. The great Northwest Passage may become a reality for a month or so a year. You have to learn to look at the positives. If you only look at negatives, that makes you an alarmist.

Answer 5

What scares me about it isn't the rate of melting versus predicted models. What scares me is it takes 80X more energy to melt one cc of ice than to raise 1cc of water 1degC. It is called the Latent Energy of Fusion.

When all that energy finishes melting the arctic ice and starts raising the oceans temperature Global Warming is really going to rear its ugly head.

"You ain't seen nuthin' yet!"

Answer 6

As an engineer and engineering manager, I have some familiarity with computer models. In the world of a reasonable engineer or scientist, when a model's predicted output is off by a factor of 3, it is called a "bad model." Such an erroneous output does not prove that things are worse than the model predicts. It proves that the model is useless.

Answer 7

It just means their climate modeling is inaccurate an they are only a year or less into the forecast.

Not necessarily inaccuracy has no particular direction it favors. It's kinda like my motorcycle there are some that say on YA That if I ride one I will die on the road because it is more dangerous to operate than a cage.

ya know plus or minus a given percentage

Answer 8

Computer models aren't any better then the data put into them. We should know this because it wasn't very long ago that Dr. Hansen's computer models were ushering in the next ice age.

Polar ice is gaining:
"20 September 2007 [top]

Overview of current sea ice conditions
Sea ice extent now stands at 4.18 million square kilometers (1.61 million square miles). This represents an increase of 50,000 square kilometers (19,000 square miles) compared to the value of 4.13 million square kilometers (1.59 million square miles) five-day running mean extent, observed on September 16, which appears to be the 2007 minimum. "

That's a growth rate of almost 5,000 sq mi PER DAY!

Computer models are not proof. Nice try, better luck next time!

Answer 9

Because for one, they only convey data that points to an unnatural increase in temperatures and completely ignore other scientists who attribute the increase to natural cycling of global climate.

Two -- there is really nothing we can do about it.

Three -- "concern" for the global climate is more often than not, politically motivated.

1+2+3= ALARMIST

Answer 10

why not just change the data some more so the computer models say it's melting 10 times faster?

think of all the money the kool aid people would give you then.

heck, maybe dr. hansen can donate some of his ill gotten gain too.