Daily Kos

More Bad Environmental News: Arctic Sea Ice Melting

Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 01:45:12 PM PDT

(From the diaries -- Plutonium Page)

And its melting at a greater rate than ever before in history:

Satellite data for the month of June show Arctic sea ice has shrunk to a record low, raising concerns about climate change, coastal erosion, and changes to wildlife patterns.

Not only that, but 2005 is on pace to become the hottest year in recorded history.

A weak El Nino and human-made greenhouse gases could make 2005 the warmest year since records started being kept in the late 1800s, NASA scientists said this week.
More on the Great Arctic Melt Off after the break . . .
The National Snow and Ice Data Centre . . . says 2002 was a record low year for sea ice cover in the Arctic, since satellite observations began in 1979.

There's evidence that may have been the lowest coverage in a century.

Now scientists fear this year could be worse. June readings indicate the ice is at its lowest limit ever for that time of year.

"It actually melted back farther than normal pretty much everywhere around the Arctic," says Walt Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in the U.S.

. . . Meier says the amount of ice that covered the Arctic Ocean in the month of June this year shrunk by a record six per cent below the average rate for the month.

What does this mean? That is, what are the possible consequences of such a rapid decline in Arctic ice coverage?

Less sea ice means more moisture in the air and more rain.

It also leads to an increase in coastal erosion since the ice isn't there to buffer the shoreline from waves.

. . .The National Snow and Ice Data Centre says Arctic sea ice usually recovers in the winter time.

But researchers have noticed ice has begun to decline in that season as well.

Now some scientists are wondering if the melting of the sea ice has already gone beyond a critical threshold from which it can't recover.

One result is decreased salinity of the oceans as millions of tons of fresh water usually bound up in artic ice flows into the oceans. What might that lead to? Well one study employing computer models says: Nothing good

As a result, loss of sea ice due to global warming would tend to decrease the stability in parts of the ocean; this opposes the well-known tendency of global warming to increase ocean stability by warming and freshening the upper ocean. Simulations of ocean uptake of an idealized transient tracer in both constant-CO2 and increasing-CO2 environments are performed to investigate the effects of physical changes in ocean and sea ice on transient tracer uptake. In the Southern Ocean, physical changes to the ocean and sea ice are found that result in slower transient tracer accumulation in most locations. When averaged over the entire Southern Ocean, however, these reductions are small, because changes in convective activity due to increased atmospheric CO2 are relatively small, and because transient tracer uptake is relatively insensitive to changes in convective activity. These results suggest that Southern Ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2 may decrease less than previously supposed as global warming progresses.

Shorthand for dumb people like me? The oceans will be less able to absorb extra human generated CO2, meaning more CO2 staying in the atmosphere, and the possibility of accelerated global warming as a direct consequence.

Here's a site that's a little more non-climatologist person friendly to explain the consequences:

Beyond the area it covers, the influence of polar ice extends out to ocean circulation and planetary weather patterns. For instance, warm winter temperatures in Europe result from ocean currents partly driven by meltwater from Arctic ice. So changes to polar regions could hold far wider ramifications.

Snow and ice . . . reflect solar radiation back into space. And they also insulate land and ocean surfaces, holding in heat that would otherwise leak into the atmosphere. So the cryosphere effectively works like a brake on global warming, but only up to a point: ice is extremely sensitive to changes in temperature, and when snow and ice begins to melt, . . . it absorbs more solar radiation, causing it to melt faster still.

This being so, shrinkage of sea ice will increase temperatures in the region still further. Polar wildlife will lose important habitats and the erosion of coastlines cleared of ice will accelerate markedly.

. . . A surfeit of melting ice as the mass balance of the cryosphere shifts threatens to affect the salinity of the oceans, modifying or switching off ocean currents, along with increasing sea level.

Getting the picture? This is serious stuff people. This is why immediate action is required on a global scale to reduce human causes of CO2, such as emissions from burning fossil fuels. This was also why the Kyoto treaty was so important, and our nation's failure to sign it and adopt a plan of action to reduce anthropogenic CO2 as required is having devastating consequences to our planet as we speak. An increased rate of melting Arctic sea ice is only one more piece of evidence that shows global warming is the reality right now, and that it poses a real threat to our species' survival on Earth.

I know, it's not as sexy a story as Rovegate, or the Downing Street memo, or even Paul Hackett's campaign in OH-2, but in the long run (and I would argue in the short run as well) this may be the single most important story of our times. It's under the radar because the media won't focus on it, and because they are easily bamboozled by the right wing lies that a controversy exists. All the more reason we need to push this story in the blogosphere.

EVERY DAMN DAY!

Tags: climate change (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 144 comments

  •  Hmmm how will Bush spin it? (none / 0)

    Or we he just deny it and move on?

    I vote the latter.

    I really have nothing invformative to say except, this is so damn depressing. I feel the most sorry for the animals who have no control over their fate and are probably trying to figure out why there is no land left for them to nest on and travel on to get to food sources.

    (sigh)

    "You are more than the sum of what you consume, desire is not an occupation" KMFDM - Dogma

    by Chaoslillith on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 12:00:19 PM PDT

    •  The Data, of course, are inconclusive (none / 0)

      I live by the sea, there's a 1,5 yard difference between the high-water mark and my door.

      Washing the floors should be a cinch soon!

      A few presidents down the road, Bush will be remembered as an unconscionably irresponsible man who wreaked havoc with the entire world, setting efforts to control what is happening back by decades.

      The crucial phase is now, and that's the exact time we have the oiladdicts in charge of the White House - just the world's luck, I guess.

      "I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."

      by SteinL on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 02:02:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes (none / 0)

        And it is a vast lefty wing conspiracy....

        Blame it on the Liberals

        Howard Dean yells!!

        Um.....

        WAR!!  Be a patriot......

        yeah....

        Trillin
        http://www.mnleftyliberal.blogspot.com

      •  I don't think it will take that long (none / 0)

        By the time his term is over, people are going to think Bush is crap-- they already do.  He should not have been reelected, it was either a fix or an amazing fluke.  People aren't happy that he's president now, and 3 years from now, people aren't going to be happy the buffoon is still hanging around.  

        Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

        by Asak on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 07:14:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Here's your answer: (none / 0)

      It's Clinton's fault!

      "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

      by Street Kid on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 02:02:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Rapture... (none / 0)

      Bush doesn't care.  The Rapture will happen long before the ice caps melt and the climate changes, causing widespread starvation, population movements, wars, and the collapse of governments.

      If fact, it should be happening anytime....  now.

      Now.

      Now?

      Soon.

      •  The Rapture. If only... (none / 0)

        Come and get them all, Jesus, every last wacky red-stater, get them off the planet so we begin to do the work to put things back in balance and heal the planet.

        "In my mind, I'm already gone." Cosmo Kramer

        by steelman on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 03:09:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's my fantasy too... (none / 0)

          ...that all the nuts who believe in the Rapture, get Raptured one day.  And once they're gone, the rest of us live in peace and harmony.

          "In case of Rapture, can I have your car?"
          --bumper sticker a friend of mine swears he saw once.

          We aren't expecting the Democrats to save us. Rather, we're working through the Democratic Party to save the country.

          by RT on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 03:48:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I pray for the Rapture daily... (none / 0)

          and I'm an atheist!! Oh, to see right wingnuts, frothing with indignant hate, go flying up into the clouds where we will never be bothered by them again. True bliss.

          "We are continually faced with great opportunities which are brilliantly disguised as unsolvable problems." -- Margaret Mead

          by flashlass on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 04:05:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The Rapture (none / 1)

        The rapture won't happen long before this.  This is the rapture.

        Life is like love in autumn

        by kenjib on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 04:15:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Good News: The Rapture Is Real (none / 0)

        The bad news: it already happened.

        God took the Liberals.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 04:52:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Liberals were shot. (none / 1)

          JFK, RFK  "our" (d) party never recovered from their deaths. Small men now run the D's party and they are more concerned about pleasing their coporate Masters, than serving the people.
        •  The Rapture (none / 0)

          You know what I think,

            The rapture will be when G*d comes and takes all of us and leaves the neocons to burn on what's left of this planet, and we will get to watch it from the afterlife!!!

           I think in the annals of heaven, a vote for Bush sent you straight to hell. (by the way, not the cool hell where Mozart and Aristotle are but the really bad hell hehe)

          "You are more than the sum of what you consume, desire is not an occupation" KMFDM - Dogma

          by Chaoslillith on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 01:54:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  He'll just hire another Phil Cooney (none / 1)

      And no one will care even after the bastard's caught editing science reports, apparently:

      Phil Cooney, then CEQ's chief of staff, was reported to have edited government climate reports to minimize the scientific certainty on global warming. Cooney is not a scientist, by the way, and had come to CEQ from the American Petroleum Institute (API), an organization that represents the oil and gas industry. There goes CEQ's credibility. Not surprisingly, the public outrage was intense, although this is not the first time White House documents on global warming have been edited to weaken the scientific case. Guess what? The next day, Cooney resigned, but not because of his editing faux pas, according to a deputy White House press secretary.

      from: Exxon, Cooney & the White House

      "We are continually faced with great opportunities which are brilliantly disguised as unsolvable problems." -- Margaret Mead

      by flashlass on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 04:03:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not just the animals (none / 0)

      I have a friend who is studing the impact on Native Communities and he says the melting permafrost is devasting for them also.
  •  Nothing to see here folks, move along.... (none / 1)

    Excellent work Steven!  Well researched and commented and ..... thank GOD no Rove.

    Lets keep pushing this stuff.  Its vital.

  •  Ar*c*tic (4.00 / 2)

    Sorry to be a spelling freak.  Great diary, and I agree it needs more attention.  Help yourself out by throwing in that extra 'c' -- arctic, not artic.

    Thanks for the research and time you put in to all this.

    •  No apology necessary (4.00 / 3)

      Some words just give me the yips so to speak, and artic . . . er, ARCTIC is one of them. Thanks for busting my chops on this.

      "I just had the basic view of the American public -- it can't be that bad out there." Marine Travis Williams after 11 members of his squad were killed.

      by Steven D on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 12:21:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Everywhere you look (4.00 / 3)

    there are articles that state the same thing, we are warming up, and what does Bush do?  Pass an energy bill that will INCREASE our use of oil and the rate at which we pollute, increasing this problem.

    I also saw a Nova on glaciers in Greenland, they used to move 6 inches a day, now they move some huge amount (can't remember, but think it was more then a football field).  Why? Because water is melting into the glacier, goes underneath and acts like a river, moving the glacier along faster then ever.  This has happened because each year the temperature is warmer, and the glacier melts more, used to be there wasn't enough water to get into the ice, now, the lakes that form are big enough and have enough pressure to get into the ice all the down, and the water never freezes.

    What will it take to wake people up?

    AfterHoursStamper.blogspot.com

    by SanJoseLady on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 12:15:59 PM PDT

    •  let's give Rove a call (none / 1)

      and get him to leak the names of some climatologists.

      maybe this issue will get the bloggerage it deserves then!

      Fixing Republican screw-ups: it's what Democrats have been doing for 100 years

      by SonofFunk on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 12:53:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah and look at the shit that got slipped into (4.00 / 2)

      that energy bill.

      WP For example, it exempts oil and gas companies from Safe Drinking Water Act requirements when they inject fluids -- including some carcinogens -- into the earth at high pressure, a process known as hydraulic fracturing. Betty Anthony, director for exploration and production at the American Petroleum Institute, said states already regulate the process, but residents of Alabama, Virginia, West Virginia and other states have complained that it has polluted groundwater in their communities.

      Meanwhile, the measure will streamline Bureau of Land Management drilling permits -- even though the Bush administration already has granted a record number of permits on BLM land. Lawmakers also authorized seismic blasting in sensitive marine areas to gauge offshore oil reserves -- despite a moratorium on drilling in many of those areas. And the bill will exempt petroleum well pads from storm-water regulations under the Clean Water Act.

      (Emphasis mine)

      Oil at $60/barrel and the oil companies get exemptions from environmental protections.  Pathetic!

    •  Glaciers dont run on melted water (none / 0)

      The recent news on Greenland glaciers deliberately picked the fasted moving glacier.
      Others are much slower and the uncertainity is about 20%.

      The blurb from greenpeace says this
      Preliminary findings indicate Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier on Greenland's east coast could be one of the fastest moving glaciers in the world with a speed of almost 14 kilometres per year. The measurements were made this week using high precision GPS survey methods. The results were compared with measurements made with satellite imagery that revealed the glacier's speed was five kilometers per year in 1996. In addition, Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier unexpectedly receded approximately five kilometres since 2001 after maintaining a stable position for the past 40 years.

      The variation from 5 km/yr to 14 km/yr could be part of a natural variation, and choosing a low speed against a high speed  proves nothing.

      Your assumption that ""melting"" causes the glacier to flow faster is nonsense. There is no melted water river under the glacier. I cant find any connection to your theory and this particular glacier, the melted water can be found only at the tongue of the glacier but since these glaciers calve into the sea it doesnt really apply
      Warming can cause the tongue of the glacier to retreat- which has happened- but if a glacier moves faster  its becuase there is more ice to be transported , and why is there more ice ?. Its not because of warming thats for sure

      •  I didn't "assume" anything (none / 1)

        I saw this on Nova Science Now, and it was on the Jakobshavn's glacier, not the Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier.

        And you can watch the same segment here:

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3210/03.html

        Here is the teachers guide:

        NOVA scienceNOW: Fastest Glacier

        Program Overview

        Scientists are studying how the Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier in western Greenland is getting smaller and moving faster due to increased melting over the past ten years.

        This NOVA scienceNOW segment:

            *

              examines the rapid changes in Greenland's Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier.
            *

              notes that the glacier is moving faster and thinning more than expected. From 2000 to 2005, the glacier's speed increased dramatically--instead of moving one foot per day, which is normal for a glacier, the speed of the Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier has increased to an astounding 113 feet per day, and no one knows why.
            *

              reports that, compared to a decade ago, average temperatures in Greenland have increased 2ºC during the summer and 6ºC during the winter, leading to 60 percent more annual glacial melting.
            *

              explains that during the summer, some of the upper layer of Greenland's ice sheet melts, producing pools of meltwater. This water seeps through the ice to the bottom of the glacier, lifting it and making it glide faster.
            *

              states that annually the glacier spews 12 trillion gallons of freshwater into the ocean and that in 1999, the ice front extended eight miles beyond its present 2005 location.
            *

              describes how scientists use satellites to monitor ice mass movement and ground stations to measure changes in the ice sheet.
            *

              suggests that understanding the changes in Greenland's ice sheet will provide insight into global climate change.

        Basically what is happening is what I said: the water is going UNDER the glacier, and it lifts the glacier up and moves it along (the show calls it a bed of water, I called it a rive, same difference).

        When you go to the segment you can also find other links to this story.

        I might also ask in as nice as terms as I can that you might ask questions on what someone states rather then "assume" that the person is wrong or has no link to the information.

        You may have other information on other glaciers, in my original post I was refering to this one, and from my source my information is correct.

        AfterHoursStamper.blogspot.com

        by SanJoseLady on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 11:44:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  SPREADSHIRT (none / 0)

        I TRUST BY NOW THAT YOU'VE SEEN THE NOVA
        LINK, IT'S REALLY QUITE NEW IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THESE THINGS WORK,
        THE GUY DOING THE SCIENCE HAS BEEN AT IT FOR
        30 YEARS. PERHAPS THE BEST WAY TO THINK OF
        WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS TO THINK OF THE "SLIP
        AND SLID" A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF WATER
        LETS ONE SLID ALONG QUITE EASILY. WHAT IS
        REALLY AMAZING IS THAT THIS GALACIER IS
        4000 FT. THICK, AND 5 YEARS AGO IT JUST TOOK
        OFF......COLORADO BOB
        •  I wouldnt accept a TV show as Scientific (none / 0)

          Interesting that we were talking about 2 different galciers on the opposite sides of greenland being the fastest moving. I have seen the Nova link but it seems to soon to get a transcript but Im looking at the other science on the jacobshavn glacier.
          http://www.waterconserve.info/articles/reader.asp?linkid=27608

          Among those examining the situation are scientists at Ohio State University, who are processing the satellite data and pinpointing the best sites for a follow-up study.

          The initial thinning of the Jakobshavn Glacier was probably a delayed response to warming that occurred after the Little Ice Age, a 500 year cold period that ended around 1800, van der Veen said.

          But that does not explain the rapid thinning that began after 1993.

          As to whether global climate change is to blame for the acceleration, van der Veen is not ready to embrace that conclusion but said "we definitely want to go back to do a long-term study of the area."

          Funny that , not ready to say global climate change is to blame.  This is repeated everytime I look into global warming scare stories, but if you get all your information from Nova fine by me

  •  Ok ok, (4.00 / 8)

    So 96,454 independent scientists have verified anthropogenic global climate change.

    Well, I think we need more science. And while we're at it, why do oceanographers hate america?

    Fixing Republican screw-ups: it's what Democrats have been doing for 100 years

    by SonofFunk on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 12:35:33 PM PDT

  •  Earth from Space: Bloom in the Baltic (4.00 / 4)

    Envisat - Phytoplankton Bloom

    A colourful summer marine phytoplankton bloom fills much of the Baltic Sea in this Envisat image.

    Monitoring phytoplankton is important because they form the base of the marine food web - sometimes known as 'the grass of the sea'.

    On a local level, out-of-control blooms can devastate marine life, de-oxygenating whole stretches of water, while some species of phytoplankton and marine algae are toxic to both fish and humans. It is useful that fishermen, fish farmers and public health officials know about such events as soon as possible.

    Globally, phytoplankton is a major influence on the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and hence need to be modelled into calculations of future climate change.

    ~~~

  •  that is cool (4.00 / 2)

    the picture, not the possibility of toxic phytoplankton

    "I just had the basic view of the American public -- it can't be that bad out there." Marine Travis Williams after 11 members of his squad were killed.

    by Steven D on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 01:49:18 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you Steven D (4.00 / 10)

    Now, I have a rant.

    WHEN THE HELL ARE AMERICANS (and Kossacks) GOING TO WAKE UP AND SEE THIS?

    I cross-posted my diary on melting glaciers over at the European Tribune, and there was FAR more interest in the issue there than there was here.

    Yeah, you've got it.

    It's not sexy.  It's not Rove, Plame, whatever.  Don't get me wrong, those are very important, but I can't believe the apathy here when it comes to climate change.

    IT IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM, FOLKS.  Yes, I'm preaching to the choir (those 10 of us or so who always recommend environmental diaries), but I think the majority of American Liberals™ pay the "environmental issue" lip service, and that's about it.

    Thank you Steven.

  •  oh, and... (4.00 / 4)

    Click here for the State of the Cryosphere sea ice link.

    The graphics are startling, to say the least (click to enlarge):

    Sea ice conditions for September 2002, 2003, and 2004, derived from the Sea Ice Index. Each image shows the concentration anomaly (key on right) and the 1979-2000 median September ice edge (pink line). For each year, the ice edge is well north of its median position off the coasts of Alaska and Siberia. Image provided by National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.
  •  Scientists Suffer From Pre 9/11 Mindset (4.00 / 3)

    Why do they hate America?

    its hard to drink all day unless you start in the morning

    by The Exalted on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 01:44:47 PM PDT

  •  THANK YOU! (4.00 / 5)

    About time this becomes the number one story.  This is the one story that actually unites a vast majority of people WHEN they learn the facts.  

    The most conservative of the conservatives care about the environment when they find out just how much deep shit we're in.   The only conservatives who don't care are the politicians paid off by the oil and gas lobby.

    Remember the What Would Jesus Drive campaign?  This is an issue even evangelicals would get behind.  

    Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

    by dansac on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 01:53:56 PM PDT

  •  It's melting because... (none / 1)

    ...God hates liberals and homosexuals.  Can't you people see that???

    "The Romans brought on their own demise, but it took them centuries. Bush has finished America in a mere 7 years." -- Paul Craig Roberts

    by Roddy McCorley on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 02:01:35 PM PDT

  •  Thnk you, Steven D! (none / 1)

    For not overwhelming me with technical jargon.

    This is definitely worth keeping track of, and getting the whole blogosphere to scream!

    As a few people have previously mentioned, appeal to the Christians by the use of the word stewardship!

    (bookmarked the esa site)

    "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

    by Street Kid on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 02:15:25 PM PDT

  •  Too Late (4.00 / 7)

    My feeling is that it is already too late.  We have begun a great experiment on our atmosphere and it will continue well beyond my lifetime (another couple of decades).  The time to have done something was in the decades after President Carter brought the issue up.  The 80's and 90's should have been the decades that we were working like mad on alternatives to burning fossil fuels, but anyone who lived through them knows they weren't because you know the issue wasn't worth even a decent fraction of the pentagon's budget.  Now we can cuddle up to the cold barrels of our guns in the ever increasing heat.  But look on the bright side.  With peak oil we will eventually have to use something other than fossil fuels because we will have burned them all.  Granted this is in a hundred years or so.  And then a couple of centuries later the plants may have taken the accumulated carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and returned things to 'normal'.  In the meantime there will be climate change and massive extinctions.  Even if every car stopped burning gas tomorrow a great amount of damage has already been done and we all know that the cars will run tomorrow and pour more CO2 into the atmosphere and the problem will get worse.  Well at least those people up high in their SUV's will get a good view of the earth burning.  This show is just starting people.  Buckle your seat belts cause when the blame starts flying so will the bullets.

    Here in the mouth of madness one thing is terribly clear...madness does not floss

    by Thameron on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 02:16:43 PM PDT

  •  Politically (4.00 / 2)

    I think the wrong words were highlighted...

    I read it this way:

    A weak El Nino and human-made greenhouse gases could make 2005 the warmest year since records started being kept in the late 1800s, NASA scientists said this week.

    Get that?  US govt scientists say its human made. They may have already been fired. The guy that let the report be published might have been fired too. But scientists, working for Bush acknowledge its human influence that is affecting worldwide weather. This is huge.

    Great diary. Tell all your friends. If something isn't done NOW...the day after tomorrow....might well be the day after tomorrow.

  •  as cheesy a movie... (none / 0)

    as The Day After Tomorrow is (and believe me, it's howlingly bad at times), Americans should be encouraged to watch it. It does a good job of explaining the paradox of global warming leading to an ice age, which is what really scares the bejeezus out of me.

    I also like how the veep is obviously inspired by Darth Cheney, though I don't think Cheney would have the spiritual conversion in the end, like this guy does.

    I'm no scientist, but it's my understanding the the science in the movie is pretty sound - if admittedly exagerated or condensed for dramatic purposes.

    -8.25, -6.26 "I'm not superstitious. But, I AM a little stitious." - Michael Scott

    by snookybeh on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 02:41:36 PM PDT

  •  We can push it (none / 0)

    We can push it in the blogosphere. People in the left blogosphere are usually well aware. The problem is the MSM which reaches people does not care about this. Depressing!
  •  concern about the North Atlantic (4.00 / 3)

    Anyone else catch this article a few months ago?

    It claimed that in the North Atlantic, there's some evidence that the "conveyor belt" is starting to weaken.  

    This was the premise for the over-the-top disaster movie "The Day After Tomorrow"... but the science behind it is not to be dismissed, just because the movie took it to a ludicrously fictional degree.  

    A real world scenario in which the Atlantic "conveyor belt" shuts down is still a real world scenario of major climate change: specifically, a much colder Europe and Northeast US/Canada.  And if it's starting to happen, we should be paying close attention.

  •  Glacier-free National Park (4.00 / 3)

    Another data point: In 1850, there were an estimated 150 glaciers in what is now Glacier National Park. There are now approximately 35, and existing glaciers, have melted to 90% of their size since 1850. All expected to melt and be gone by 2030.

    Maybe we should start a contest for a new name for the park?

    [-8.50,-8.31] Look out honey, 'cause i'm using technology. Ain't got time to make no apology.

    by patop on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 02:55:20 PM PDT

  •  and lest we forget ... (4.00 / 4)

    rising sea and ocean levels will also displace countless peoples like the Tuvalu:
    Tuvalu is the first country where people are trying to evacuate because of rising seas, but it almost certainly will not be the last. It is seeking a home for 11,000 people, but what about the 311,000 who may be forced to leave the Maldives? Or the millions of others living in low-lying countries who may soon join the flow of climate refugees? Who will accept them? Will the United Nations be forced to develop a climate-immigrant quota system, allocating the refugees among countries according to the size of their population? Or will the allocation be according to the contribution of individual countries to the climate change that caused the displacement?

    ...

    Many developing countries already coping with population growth and intense competition for living space and cropland now face the prospect of rising sea level and substantial land losses. Some of those most directly affected have contributed the least to the buildup in atmospheric CO2 that is causing this problem.

    While Americans are facing loss of valuable beachfront properties, low-lying island peoples are facing something far more serious: the loss of their nationhood. They feel terrorized by U.S. energy policy, viewing the United States as a rogue nation, indifferent to their plight and unwilling to cooperate with the international community to implement the Kyoto Protocol.

    While Bush has entered into an agreement with Australia:

    "[The Asia-Pacific pact] is no substitute for agreements like the Kyoto Protocol and we do not expect it to have a real impact on climate change," the European Commission's environment spokeswoman Barbara Helferrich told BBC News.

    ...

    the Asia-Pacific agreement, which is entirely voluntary, entirely technology-based, with no binding targets for reducing emissions, no sanctions, no mechanisms, and as yet no funding.

    "What is different and what is disturbing about this initiative is the attempt to organise a bloc of developing countries, including China and India, around what's officially a complementary approach but which could be converted into an opposing bloc," Philip Clapp, president of the political lobby group the National Environmental Trust in Washington DC, said.

    So, much touted as "complimentary" to Kyoto and offerning an alternative "for developing countries seeking a way forward beyond the Kyoto Protocol, it may prove a rather attractive package with its shiny paper of guaranteed economic growth and its ribbons of exciting new technology - perhaps more enticing than the European offering of mandatory targets and sanctions" (ibid).

    Seems like pretty tyical neo-liberal economic, neo-conservative political spin a la the "Healthy Forests" or "Clean Air" initiatives.  

    I really doubt that the answers to halting the severity of climate change will come about by "friendly encouragement" from the over-developed Noth/West to the rest of the world when cheap and dirty hydrocarbons remain unregulated and (apparently) abundant, but call me cynical.

    "There is no limit to what you can do if you have the power to change the rules." -Josh Marshall

    by grollen on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 02:58:50 PM PDT

  •  Solution: More coal-fired plants (none / 1)

    Yep.  That's the Bush plan.  More fossil fuel extraction.

    There are two forms of large-scale baseload energy, coal and nuclear.  One contributes hugely to the CO2 and greenhouse gas load of the planet and the other contributes virtually nothing.  The volume of waste generated annually by nuclear plants worldwide is minuscule in comparison to the waste generated by coal, which is not isolated, not shielded, and contains concentrated radioactive elements like U-235.

    Premature deaths from coal combustion in US annually: 32,000.
    Deaths from nuclear power plants in 40 years: zero.

    Number of new coal-fired plants applying for licenses in US: over 100.

    Number of nuclear plants to go online since 1996: zero.

    Prominent environmentalists who have endorsed nuclear power as part of the solution to human contribution to global warming:  Stewart Brand, Patrick Moore (founder of Greenpeace), Hugh Montefiore (founder of Friends of the Earth), James Lovelock (Gaia hypothesis).

    The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

    by Plan9 on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 03:12:03 PM PDT

  •  A long time ago... (none / 1)

    James Watt told everyone not to worry about the environment, because the End Times were coming.

    It's Science or Faith. And Faith won't stop the ice caps from melting.

    Dissent Protects Democracy

    by cscs on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 03:12:50 PM PDT

  •  Look, this is no big deal ... (4.00 / 3)

    ...I have it on good authority that what this means is we'll be able to extend the wheat-growing belt into northern Canada. Better yet, no more worrying about polar bears because they hunt on the ice and there soon won't be any.

    As for the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment" from last November, it's all bunk. I know this because the wonderful Bush Administration opposes the report's recommendations. So they can't be any good.

    The Bush administration has been working for months to keep an upcoming eight-nation report from endorsing broad policies aimed at curbing global warming, according to domestic and foreign participants, despite the group's conclusion that Arctic latitudes are facing historic increases in temperature, glacial melting and abrupt weather changes.

    State Department representatives have argued that the group, which has spent four years examining Arctic climate fluctuations, lacks the evidence to prepare detailed policy proposals. But several participants in the negotiations, all of whom requested anonymity for fear of derailing the Nov. 24 report, said officials from the eight nations and six indigenous tribes involved in the effort had ample science on which to draft policy.

    Forget about this, folks. Nothing to worry about. Need ice? Use that little machine on the front of your refrigerator.

    I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

    by Meteor Blades on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 03:14:09 PM PDT

  •  Wake up call.... (none / 1)

    Go to: http://dieoff.org/

    Here ae a few areas examined: Synopsis] [Search] [Oil Depletion] [Economic Theory] [Scientific Consensus] [Food, Land, Water and Population] [Climate Change] [Disease] [Moral Theory] [Carrying Capacity] [Tragedy of The Commons] [Sustainability] [Ecology] [Systems] [Odds & Ends]

    If anyone has doubts about the shit we are in due to our own stupidity, stop what you are doing for a minute, think for yourself, think about Africa where food, soil, etc have been mismanaged by mankind and examine the results.

    People are not dying, WHOLE POPULATIONS are DYING!

    George Bush can rot in hell for all I care but so can the blessed Christians that should know about stewardship but ignore such matters to bitch about anything picayune and meaningless.

    Evidently God isn't a loving God when it comes to nature.

    Reality is best served in small portions and only to others.

    by 0hio on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 03:19:26 PM PDT

  •  This is a complex issue (4.00 / 4)

    While I agree 100% that we must reduce our global pollution drastically, allow me to make a few points.

    There are still many variables and unknowns here.

    As the original post mentions, we only have somewhat accurate records going back less than 150 years on global temperatures. And perhaps 30 years of satellite data. Researchers drilling and studying glaciers and ice cores and ancient trees can also posit guesses and rudimentary theories explaining weather trends for the last 1000-2000 years. Geological data gives us some valid insight into cruder data of long term weather patterns such as ice ages and periods of great warmth going back 100s of millennia, but those eras are with margins of error longer than the data that we have in recorded history (since the iron age or so).

    Some serious researchers theorize that sun cycles might have a more profound effect on our weather cycles than any CO2 that we have produced since the start of the industrial revolution. Solar flares and sun spots cycles seem to correlate with long term Earth weather cycles. I.e.: solar weather may affect terrestrial weather more than anything else. And what affects solar weather? Galactic cycles? There are many unknowns here...

    If you look at European history from the last 1500 years or so, you would notice that the Vikings were very active in a 300-400 year period (ca 700-1300 CE) when temperatures in Europe were quite above average, and that the Viking settlement in Greenland failed as winter temperatures fell drastically (ca 1300 CE). Later, during the reign of Elizabeth I, (ca 1500) there was a "mini ice age" when winter lasted straight through the summer and the Thames river in London stayed frozen all year.

    The point being that global warming and cooling cycles are much longer and more mysterious to us than anyone would like to admit. While the fact that man-made pollution has an effect on global weather is nigh but indisputable, there still remain far too many questions as to exactly what that effect is...

    Ice ages, for example, follow several different cycles, including a ca 10,000 year cycle (it's been ca 10,000 years since the last ice age and we are about due another), to longer term cycles that are measured in 100,000 year cycles that are not as well understood. (Should we really be having an ice age now, and is our pollution interfering with it? No one really knows).

    Bottom line: we are polluting too much. How much one presidency or even one human generation could do to reverse such human caused trends is at best conjecture. That said, if humans have contributed to climate change, then we cannot begin soon enough to mend the errors of our ways.

    Let's do something now. Clean up our act. Reduce emmisions, plant trees. Fight erosion. Whether it will do any good is an unknown, but it can't hurt to try.

    PS: Remember your lifestyle contributes; what you consume, how you travel, makes a difference. Don't blame politicians. Look at yourself, your neighbors and your communities. You can make a difference.

    ___
    To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought.
    ~Tom Robbins

    Conlige suspectos semper habitos

    by Marcus Junius Brutus on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 03:21:59 PM PDT

  •  Bush-Howard Laser Pull 10th Planet (none / 0)

    New alliance for technological solutions on climate change --
    2003 UB313 to replace Arctic ice cap.

    2003 UB313 is an ice formation approximately 3,000 km in diameter

    .

    NASA       <Click Image>

    Asia Pacific Partnership - USA - China - India - Japan - Australia - South Korea

    ~~~