The IPCC is Wrong

Shortly after my minor run in with Al Gore, he won the Nobel Peace prize. He is getting alot of the credit, but in reality the prize was half awarded to him and half to the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC is a group of scientists set up through an effort from the United Nations. One of its main activities is to publish special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The IPCC has published 4 reports in 1990, 1995, 2001, and most recently early in 2007.

One of the things that these reports do is to publish models of climate change that attempt to predict the future. The publish a range of values, worst and best case. Folks who don't care about climate change tend to argue with these numbers, claiming that we've never seen this before so any number is really just a guess with no historical data to back it up. On the other end of the spectrum, there are folks like me who tend to believe reports from an organization this serious and scientific.

Of course, as with any theory you can test it by waiting to see if your estimate matches reality. That has now happened. It turns out that the IPCC was very wrong in their estimates, especially one estimate - the speed at which the greenland icecap would melt. The IPCC painted a grim picture where the Greenland ice caps would probably be completely gone by around year 2,100. I probably won't live that long, but there are people alive today who will. You have to forgive me for trusting models that really ignored many variables and tried to do its best. You see, the IPCC's model was so badly incorrect, that by the time it was published it was clear that it was a bit off. By now, summer is nearly over and the most recent satellite data shows how bad the IPCC's estimate really was.



The real data shows that the Greenland ice sheet has shrunk by about 30% compared to the same time in 2005. The rest of the sheet that is still around has decreased in thickness by over 50% since 2001. Many well respected scientists are now suggesting that we may have an iceless northern icecap as early as the summer of 2013, in just under 5 years, not the century that the IPCC suggests. See, in the graph above, the IPCC estimate is red, the blue area is the best/worst case range of estimates, and the dark black line is reality. Reality tells us that the IPCC was way too optimistic.

Why was the IPCC so wrong? The IPCC was afraid to include in their models variables that weren't as well understood because they did not want to be discredited if they overestimated climate change. They wanted a conservative estimate. Here are things that they ignored:

1. Albedo Feedback. White snow and ice reflect alot of sunlight back into space, that is energy the earth doesn't absorb. As it melts, that snowy surface turns into darker water or rock which absorbs alot more energy.
2. Carbon Cycle Feedback: As CO2 concentrations increase, plant life on the land and in the sea becomes less capable of absorbing CO2.
3. Permafrost Feedback: As the artic warms, permafrost melts and organic matter that was previously basically frozen starts to get converted by bacteria into methane, which bubbles up and enters the atmosphere. Methane is 25 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
4. Glacier Flow: Heated air melts ice from the top, that water collects in pools and since it is both heavier than ice and warmer, melts its way through to the bottom of the glaciers and then the glaciers are lubricated and flow into the ocean more easily, where the warmer water in the ocean speeds up their melting.

You can find more information here, read the full report if you have the time. Some of the scientists quoted in the report believe that we are beyond the tipping point, whereby it may be impossible to maintain a steady state or even return to a steady state. You can see why in the graph below. I on the other hand am grimly optimistic that we can (although pessimistic that we will) stop this.