This is a continuation of a previous report on the 2/2/07 release of the Assessment Report #4 Summary for Policy Makers

I was curious to see what was perhaps made of the projections from the Hadley Center discussed here about a month ago. The projections were there, bold as you please. The summary made something very different of those projections that had “The Ecologist” in their January report. What the projections depict are the relative temperature changes in various parts of the planet at the end of the present century. I found, and still find, this to be most interesting stuff, and at this point it is freely available to you from IPCC. The projection is color coded, with various red shadings indicating maximum heat buildup and yellow representing very little It’s a very, very spotty projection, let me tell you, with generally the greatest temperature changes experienced in the northern hemisphere and the least centered over Antarctica – more on that later. The total change predicted for the earth in 2099 was reported, generally, as rather modest – nothing like the projections in The Ecologist (which was reviewing The Stern Report), but certainly significant in any event. On EB there is an anticipatory obituary for Sydney, Australia for instance. Africa has had it, and vast regions of south and central Asia. In short, a death sentence for a significant portion of humanity. It doesn’t say how things are going to be here in Oregon, but nothing suggests anything remotely resembling good news. You like tornadoes? If you do, perhaps then you can rejoice.

A further word about the difference between the IPCC report and The Ecologist: Unlike IPCC, The Ecologist was a good bit looser in their treatment of time. When they gave the possibility of a 10 degree Centigrade (18 degree F.) they didn’t specify exactly when. IPCC was concerned specifically with 2099, but state with certainty that warming would continue for a very long time after that. 18 degrees would give Portland the same kind of temperatures currently enjoyed by Bakersfield or Yuma. With the presence of maritime air, comparing it to Calcutta may be more appropriate. The place would sure look different with the evergreen forests gone.

On the other hand, at about the same time, I became aware of the Scott Polar Research Institute (SPRI) and their elegant web pages. You can get there, as I did, by simply entering ‘spri’ in the query box in www.google.com. When you wind up on the web pages at that site you are in an elegant place indeed – Cambridge University in the U.K. One of SPRI’s specialties is the measurement of polar ice sheets and ice shelves. In a 2001 issue of Science Magazine, London University announced the arrival of the ERS, a high precision radar satellite system that is accurate to within 20 cm (about 8 inches), which is pretty good, given that Antarctic ice can reach three miles thick. As earlier stated, the base of the ice sheet is well mapped, utilizing the known technology of petroleum geologists. Apparently SPRI has their own gadgets contributing to our knowledge of the state of the polar continent.

At any rate, apparently using the Hadley projections showing little change in Antarctic temperatures, the IPCC Summary pretty much dismisses sea level contributions from the Antarctic. But the Scott Polar Research Institute is reporting definite thinning of the ice sheet over West Antarctica.

What’s going on? Like I’m gonna know? But we do know this: If you saw “An Inconvenient Truth” last summer, or have since acquired a printed copy, reflect that in 2001 the Larsen-B ice shelf was intact in a satellite photo in January, had completely disappeared in the satellite photo 35 days later. That’s 2600 square miles of ice seventy feet thick, gone as in a science fiction movie. Predicated? Hardly. Shocksville. What the heck was that?

If you have a hard copy of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ dig it out and look at those satellite photos. On Larsen-B in January – long finger-lakes of water had formed, with a moulin – a tube through the ice, draining the water to below the ice, for each one. Those identical finger lakes and moulin appear on the ice sheet over the western Antarctica.

Curious, I hunted in the library for information on West Antarctica. I found an huge encyclopedia on Antarctica on the reference shelves. Seems Antarctica is composed of two quite separate pieces, Greater Antarctica to the east, Lesser Antarctica to the west. Once upon a time Lesser Antarctica was part of the super-continent Gondwana, along with Africa and South America. Gondwana broke up for some reason and its pieces wandered into their present position, with Lesser Antarctica jammed up against Greater Antarctica. It is speculated that it is the massive ice sheet overlying all of Antarctica that glues the two pieces together. On the western edge of Greater Antarctica is a colossal mountain range from north to south over the entire continent. All of Antarctica is deeply scored terrain, all covered by an average of some 8,000 feet of ice, with some enormously tall mountain ranges showing above the ice sheet.

Now, the really interesting part. The bedrock of Lesser Antarctica is 5,000 feet below sea level. Put that in your thought cooker and light it. It is supposed, I’m told, that it is the sheer weight of the ice that has suppressed that rock to that negative elevation, thereby distorting the shape of the earth, making it pear shaped.

Okay. Now think about that colossal mountain range separating Lesser and Greater Antarctica. Part of that humongous ice sheet is supported on an inclined plane. The ice itself begins 5,000 feet below the surface of the sea. If enough weight comes off the ice sheet, might the whole caboodle over Lesser Antarctica begin to shift to the west and become sea-borne? What might you suppose to be happening then to sea levels all over the world? And if the weight of the ice over Lesser Antarctica is reduced, is it possible that the rocky surface of Lesser Antarctica may try to emerge once again from the sea? Are we talking major here?

I am not the originator of that concern. A scientist first pronounced it. I didn’t understand why he did that until I read that encyclopedia. Now I begin to feel that I understand a little bit what might have been on his mind.

So, what we have is the IPCC Summary that shows little change in the Antarctic before 2099 and therefore limited increases in sea level. Opposing that, we have The Stern Report, the reports of the Scott Polar Research Institute and disappearance of Larsen-B, which must have been caused by something. Those finger lakes and moulin are showing on the ice sheet over Lesser Antarctica. What does it all mean? Stay tuned, folks. With any luck we’re not gonna know any time soon. I hope.

As the full Assessment Report #4 becomes available later in the year, I believe these apparent contradictions will be resolved. One must remember the editorial function of the 131 governments. EB is of course reporting all sorts of things about the report, including the not surprising information that the representatives of China and the U.S. were obstructive. I don’t believe that editorial function relates to anything other than the Summary for Policymakers, however. I don’t think they can touch the real stuff.

Meanwhile, the opposition is aroused. EB reports that the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative ‘think tank’ supported by ExxonMobile, is offering $10,000 to anyone with scientific credentials who will attack the IPCC report and those who speak well of it. Here in the southern Willamette Valley, attacks from around the country are coming in on a statement by Oregon Senator Vicki Walker, who dismissed the negative reporting of an Oregon pseudo-scientist. The attackers themselves seemed of the pseudo-scientific breed, suggesting that perhaps the conservative think tank isn’t all that picky about whom they might award.

This entry was posted on Monday, February 12th, 2007 at 9:02 am and is filed under Energy Future, Environment, General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.