/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2928228

Sure.

Rahmstorf et al. 2007 - "Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections"

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf

Stroeve et al. 2007 - "Sea ice decline: faster than forecast

http://www.ualberta.ca/~eec/Stroeve2007.pdf

Allison et al 2009 - Copenhagen Diagnosis 1st ed.

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/

Ironically, the IPCC which everyone accuses of alarmism was actually very conservative. They ended up being more conservative than reality in many of their projections.

The only metric that isn't close to or exceeding A1FI is temperature rise. I suspect that sulphate aerosols from increased coal burning is actually keeping temperatures lower than they would otherwise be. James Hansen calls this the Faustian bargain of mitigation. If we lower emissions immediately, the temperature will actually increase more rapidly in the short-term due to the coal plants shutting down. But if we wait longer, or people decide after that it was foolish to limit emissions, then we are committing ourselves to much greater future warming. It's a big conundrum

>>2595697

Let me also dispel a myth that the IPCC is "alarmist" or some shit

Unfortunately for us, the IPCC has actually underestimated the rate of change that we are actually seeing. Their most pessimistic marker scenario, A1FI, is exceeded by a number of metrics:

Sea ice decline ~3 times faster than A1FI:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~eec/Stroeve2007.pdf

Sea level rise one-third faster than A1FI, CO2 emissions closely tracking A1FI:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf

Stuff that wasn't supposed to happen at all: Massive methane venting from Siberian permafrost, severe drought and loss of primary production in the Amazon rainforest, and 200-gigatonne-per-year Greenland/Antarctic ice mass loss:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.170.8753&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6017/554.abstract

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1246.abstract

Overall, scientific findings are 20 times more likely to reveal worse-than-expected trends than better-than-expected ones:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.04.003

>>2297119

No problemo

>>2297100

Actually, you're right.

Sea level rise is occurring one-third faster than the most pessimistic SRES reference scenario. Summer Arctic sea ice decline is three times worse than the most pessimistic projection. CO2 concentrations are tracking the most pessimistic projection. Global temperatures are tracking the second most pessimistic projection.

Turns out that the IPCC was so cautious, so conservative, and so careful to avoid criticism from Gulf petrostates and other major fossil fuel exporters, that reality turned out worse than their worst expectations.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136843v1
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029703.shtml
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/the-copenhagen-diagnosis-references/

>>1708689

Saying it doesn't make it true. You have to provide sources if you're going to say something that is obviously false.

The mass balance of the Arctic sea ice is decreasing

>>1454493

Arctic sea ice extent is occurring way faster than originally projected. Please pardon the CNN-style 3D bullshit.