I get a lot of notifications in my inbox daily about scientific rumblings going on in the world, but this one caught my eye this evening. Some recent NASA data in the arctic region seems to point to a huge acceleration in the melting rate of the ice — should the melting continue at its current rate, NASA scientists project that it’s only a matter of years before the arctic might be completely ice free in the summers.
An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer, a warning sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point. One even speculated that summer sea ice would be gone in five years.
Greenland’s ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer’s end was half what it was just four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press.
The Arctic is screaming,” said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government’s snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colo.
Just last year, two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.
This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”
So scientists in recent days have been asking themselves these questions: Was the record melt seen all over the Arctic in 2007 a blip amid relentless and steady warming? Or has everything sped up to a new climate cycle that goes beyond the worst case scenarios presented by computer models?
“The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming,” said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. “Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines.”
…
The surface area of summer sea ice floating in the Arctic Ocean this summer was nearly 23 percent below the previous record. The dwindling sea ice already has affected wildlife, with 6,000 walruses coming ashore in northwest Alaska in October for the first time in recorded history. Another first: the Northwest Passage was open to navigation.
Still to be released is NASA data showing the remaining Arctic sea ice to be unusually thin, another record. That makes it more likely to melt in future summers. Combining the shrinking area covered by sea ice with the new thinness of the remaining ice, scientists calculate that the overall volume of ice is half of 2004’s total.
In addition to changes in the arctic ice, there are also many changes going on with permafrost regions in the arctic, in particular with Greenland and Alaska:
Alaska’s frozen permafrost is warming, not quite thawing yet. But temperature measurements 66 feet deep in the frozen soil rose nearly four-tenths of a degree from 2006 to 2007, according to measurements from the University of Alaska. While that may not sound like much, “it’s very significant,” said University of Alaska professor Vladimir Romanovsky.
Surface temperatures in the Arctic Ocean this summer were the highest in 77 years of record-keeping, with some places 8 degrees Fahrenheit above normal, according to research to be released Wednesday by University of Washington’s Michael Steele.
Greenland, in particular, is a significant bellwether. Most of its surface is covered by ice. If it completely melted something key scientists think would likely take centuries, not decades it could add more than 22 feet to the world’s sea level.
However, for nearly the past 30 years, the data pattern of its ice sheet melt has zigzagged. A bad year, like 2005, would be followed by a couple of lesser years.
According to that pattern, 2007 shouldn’t have been a major melt year, but it was, said Konrad Steffen, of the University of Colorado, which gathered the latest data.
“I’m quite concerned,” he said. “Now I look at 2008. Will it be even warmer than the past year?”
If you’ve followed any reports on global warming in the past few years, the main consensus with most of them is that we are really at a point of no return, something that this latest batch of data also seems to suggest.
“What if we injected a huge cloud of ash into the atmosphere, to deflect sunlight and heat? As an emergency measure to slow a melting ice cap?” http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/192
That’s a link to an interesting talk by Environmental scientist David Keith who goes on to talk about deflecting sunlight and also the politics of doing so. This is something that can be done today and is done naturally by erupting volcanoes.
I was thinking about the volcano in Ecuador that’s just about to blow. We’ll have an answer for you soon Malone@
Hi Duane,
I sent you an interesting article relating to the Arctic.
I will only say that I wish there were more balance in the flow of information. It seems all too biased, for political reasons I know. One has to think the sky is falling in order to actually change their ways, hence the phrasing of the articles to sound like the world is coming to an end.
I don’t hold a university degree, nor am I a speclialist in any of the concerns caused by global warming, so please disregard any of the comments if you wish.
From what I have read in the news and other sources, global warming will most affect the poorer nations the most. Mainly Asia and Africa are said to be the worst hit. North America and Western Europe will feel the wrath of climate change, but will have better resources and infastructure to remain comparitively unaffected. Almost 3/4 of the worlds population live in both Asia and Africa. My main point of this is that what will the west be able to do when there isn’t enough potable water to support these areas because all the rivers have flooded? Or when thousands of towns and villages that feed their populations with fish or other sea life can’t because the sea life has died off due to the inceased temperature? My guess is that these nations will begin fighting for control of the remaining unaffected resources, and do so in the most horrendous ways because they will be fighting for their survival. How while the west be able to maintain peace of nealy 4.5 billion people?
I understand that global warming is here and that there really is not much that we can do about it. Kyoto and other similar agreements are a great start, but are long term solutions that will only start showing benefits decades or even ceturies down the road. Shorter term solutions for the next 30-40 years may be just as, or more important then the long term solutions Would it not be wise of the western world to begin to help the most affected nations with finding alternate means of food, water and with relocating shoreline communities now rather then on the verge of WW3?
I have to ask why is it that people think that the climate of the world should not be changing. If anything our world is in constant turmoil and NOTHING has ever stayed the same. When you really look at the “solution” proposed to curb Global warming all it is is a tax. I understand we as human beings have been a sore on the planet for many years now and there is much we can do to be better guests here. But I find it laughable that people think CF light bulbs is one of the greatest answers. These bulbs contain mercury and if you dropped you bulb on the floor it would be a toxic spill. Also are any of these bulbs made in North America? I think not. One guess where they are made. Anyone care to guess what powers said plant and how clean it is???
Wake up people. Check this out:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5082002876482224656&q=Endgame global&total=247&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
By the summer of 2012, that is freaking 4 years. So so scary.
I had watched this special on BBC a while ago, and it was explaining reasons why people think that Dec. 21 2012 will be the end of the world. Very interesting, and has a very eerie believability to it with all these references. Believe it or not (I don’t) but it is more of a reason to live your life to the fullest I guess….
If you are interested is being a pessimist: http://www.endoftime2012.com/
lol, cheers
Brett
I wish that I had become an environmental scientist that way I wouldn’t feel so helpless and frustrated reading all of this stuff. If we’re starting to propose things like injecting ash in to the atnosphere to prevent the heat, that is bad. That has major motion picture that doesn’t end well for humanity written all over it. Are we at the ‘you made your bed now lay in it stage’ ?instead of prevention we’re now focussing on how to slow down the side effects… grumble.. that’s scary
[quote comment=”38303″]By the summer of 2012, that is freaking 4 years. So so scary.
I had watched this special on BBC a while ago, and it was explaining reasons why people think that Dec. 21 2012 will be the end of the world. Very interesting, and has a very eerie believability to it with all these references. Believe it or not (I don’t) but it is more of a reason to live your life to the fullest I guess….
If you are interested is being a pessimist: http://www.endoftime2012.com/
lol, cheers
Brett[/quote]
I was just going to say 2012, hey? I’m not a firm believer in the endoftimes theory. I think the Mayans were an interesting and intelligent culture, but because there has been so many “Boy Who Cried Wolf” stories about when the world would end, like the Spanish Flu in 1918, and Y2K. But I did find it interesting that the scientist, no less, pointed out that date.
I think it’s hilarious but maybe, moreso sad, that our countries here in the west, still focus on the ECONOMY, as if it’s more real than nature.
I do agree it is something to think about, since our future is in question, however, my heart breaks for the plants and animals that are already suffering consequences. We are seeing the changes, they are suffering the changes.
growing up north of 60, I can say that the region has been forever changed. Crucial ice roads linking the mines and small communities open late and close early. The animals migrations pattern has changed and the caribou lose there winter coat much faster. All this has been said already before but witnessing it, is frightnening.
A few other thoughts on Climate Change, we must consider all input, not just the ones that fit in with what they would have us believe to be 100% true and the only truth.
A warmer Arctic?
Blame Mother Nature
LORNE GUNTER
A warmer Arctic? Blame Mother Nature
National Post
Mon 07 Jan 2008
Page: A12
Section: Editorials
Byline: Lorne Gunter
‘Something other than CO2 and CO2-related feedbacks … are playing a
large role in the region’s recent temperature trends.”
Read that again and keep in mind the “the region” being referred to is
the Arctic. The plain meaning is that the warming in the Arctic is not
only — or even mostly — man-made. It is not the result of carbon
emissions, no matter how often we have been warned that this past
summer’s melt was unprecedented and a foreboding harbinger of a coming
global meltdown.
In the most recent issue of Nature — a prestigious scientific journal
that in the past has shown a decided hostility to studies that
contradict the climate change hysteria — Rune Graversen and others
from the meteorology department at Stockholm University postulate that
the recent, allegedly dangerous Arctic thaw is far from unique in
history. Rather than being the result of man-made climate change, they
argue, the warming northern seas and tundra mainly result from
atmospheric energy transfers from southern latitudes to northern.
In other words, tropical storms and atmospheric currents travelling
from the tropics to the Arctic have shifted a large amount of heat
from equatorial regions to the North.
In addition to being natural, this is also a cyclical phenomenon. It
has happened before and will happen again. Big melts up north very
likely occurred well before industrialization and will almost
certainly recur periodically even if we cork all our factory stacks
and shut off all our car engines. Maybe Arctic warming is just
something the Earth does occasionally to let off steam in the tropics.
Are man-made emissions magnifying the warming? The Swedes think they
may be, but their effect pales next to that of nature’s own
south-to-north heat conveyor.
Remember, too, amidst all the headlines about catastrophic Arctic
warming, there are reliable satellite images of Arctic ice coverage
going back only to 1979 and — at least in the Western hemisphere —
reliable surface and air observations going back to just 1972.
So-called “record” melting is only a record compared to the past 30 or
40 years.
Then there was the news in early December that Icelandic and Norwegian
scientists had determined an ancient polar bear jawbone they had
discovered in 2004 was 110,000 to 130,000 years old.
What has that got to do with global warming? Only that it proves Ursus
maritimus was a separate species before the Eeemian interglacial
period. The Eeemian was a much warmer period than our own Holocene
period, yet the big white predators managed to survive it without
endangered species protection or the hand-wringing of
environmentalists.
Professor Olafur Ingolfsson of the University of Iceland told the BBC
“this is telling us that despite the ongoing warming in the Arctic
today, maybe we don’t have to be so worried about the polar bear.”
Moreover, while we in the West have good Arctic weather data for only
the past half century or less, the Russians — with their northern
military bases, scientific stations and gulags — have records going
back more than a century. And many Russian scientists are convinced
the Earth has entered (or soon will enter) a sustained period of
cooling, rather than calamitous warming.
Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory, was quoted by
Russian news agencies last week saying the Earth has passed the heat
peak. The recent active period of solar activity has ended and
noticeably colder temperatures could begin as soon as 2012.
Are all these facts proof positive that man-made global warming is no
threat? No. But they are proof that many reputable climate scientists
disagree with the alarmist belief that our planet is headed for doom
unless we all remake our lifestyles drastically and turn over global
energy policy to the UN.
And what about hurricanes? We have just finished the second straight
year of below-average ‘cane activity. That doesn’t disprove global
warming either. But why is it we are bombarded by claims of a
warming-hurricane link only in bad years, yet hear nothing from
environmentalists in good years?
My point is that coverage of global warming and climate change have
become horribly one-sided. Every report about a disappearing tree tick
or nasty bout of rainfall that seems to support the received wisdom is
blared loud and wide, while stories that might undermine it are seldom
given more than brief mention.
It the public is to make up its mind about climate change, it needs
better balance.
____________________
Lorne Gunter
Columnist/Editorial Writer,
National Post
Columnist, Edmonton Journal
Tele: (780) 916-0719
E-mail: lgunter@shaw.ca
Fax: (780) 481-4735
Address: 132 Quesnell Cres NW
Edmonton AB T5R 5P2
I would suggest reading Jared Diamond “How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed”.
(google for more info).
Nice that you mentioned that book, I got it for Xmas! I honestly don’t have a problem with the debates on climate control being one sided, for the longest time people who believed in it were labeled “hippies”. Now so many scientists believe in it and many people can actually see the effects it is having around the world.
And what do we have to lose really?? Even if global warming isn’t real, what is wrong with being more environmentally conscious?? People are recycling more, saving more energy and pushing for greener alternatives for everything from grocery bags to cars. Making a real push for alternative energy sources will also help lessen our need for foreign oil, which is one of the main causes of suffering that happens all around the world.
So whether it is 100% real or not, who cares really. It’s a situation where we have everything to lose if we ignore it, and if we do believe in it all that we are doing is making the world a better place.
[quote comment=”38328″]Nice that you mentioned that book, I got it for Xmas! I honestly don’t have a problem with the debates on climate control being one sided, for the longest time people who believed in it were labeled “hippies”. Now so many scientists believe in it and many people can actually see the effects it is having around the world.
And what do we have to lose really?? Even if global warming isn’t real, what is wrong with being more environmentally conscious?? People are recycling more, saving more energy and pushing for greener alternatives for everything from grocery bags to cars. Making a real push for alternative energy sources will also help lessen our need for foreign oil, which is one of the main causes of suffering that happens all around the world.
So whether it is 100% real or not, who cares really. It’s a situation where we have everything to lose if we ignore it, and if we do believe in it all that we are doing is making the world a better place.[/quote]
I agree with you 100%, whatever motivates people to be more responsible should be used. I just get tired of always hearing CO2 from human’s as the source of the problem.
I went home for Xmas and introduced my gf to the “great” lakes and their high levels of pollution. Where’s the cleanup? No, don’t wait for nature to fix it, clean the damn shit up!!! They cut healthcare and education and social programs to help the mentally ill and help get homeless back on their feet, but they can’t seem to deploy systems to clean up the rivers and lakes we drink from!
Too expensive my ass!
Do I believe in global warming? Of course I do
Do I think we are the direct cause of it? Not at all
Did we accelerate it? probably
The earth goes through constant climate change and has been since the beginning of time. Just because we are here doesn’t mean it suddenly happened or that we can stop it. We were never able to stop it, even if only 10 people had ever existed in history, it would still happen. The earth goes through cycles, there are warming periods (which we are in) and cooling periods, aka ice age (which we are heading to). There is a good chance that we accelerated the rate in which it happens (almost a 100% chance we did) but you can’t just blame us for everything. It’s a good thing that people are taking more notice of the environment but lets stop spending billions on climate research and put it towards something like…oh i don’t know….finding a cure for aids/cancer/world hunger/ect. If we would have spent all the money we have spent on these reports, one if not all of those problems would be solved. Whats the point of studying how the climate will be 3 degrees higher in average in the next 20 years if our species continues to die from things that can be cured/remedied?
I recently read Bjorn Lomborg’s books – The Skeptical Environmentalist. While he was derided over his research methods in the first, and more commentary continues to come forward on his latest, he does provide an interesting view on the issue: “Yes, Global Warming is occuring, but maybe it’s not quite as bad as we think it is.” And here’s what I really like about what he has to say. He suggests that rather than spending money on things like meeting Kyoto or the Clean Air Act, that we should spend our money on Research & Development to make solutions more readily available to the general population (think solar panels). The cheaper they are, the more likely people may be to try them out. And the sooner the average Joe starts using something that helps curb humans’ contribution to Global Warming, the better off we’ll be – and we’ll get there sooner. Rather than taxing the crap out of citizens for using “dirty” technologies, let’s make it much, much cheaper to use clean ones.
Speaking as someone who has spent her entire professional career working in the environmental industry (not to mention educated with two degrees relating to the subject matter), please enjoy the following quote:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair
[quote comment=”38356″]Speaking as someone who has spent her entire professional career working in the environmental industry (not to mention educated with two degrees relating to the subject matter), please enjoy the following quote:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair[/quote]
Bidasigekwe, you just made me feel very sad. Very very sad. But so very true for my profession as well (one diploma Elec Eng, one degree BaSc Elec Eng, no transfer of credit — i just love the technology to death).
Optimus, have you checked out the Earth Ship? It’s homes built out of recycled material and Earth and such, it’s pretty cool, totally self sustaining. I’m dying to move into a log cabin LOOKING place made from Earth Ship stuff, with a satellite for internet so I can work from home and use solar panels and such. I’d be all over that.
It’s so geeky it makes me feel like I need a shower. 😛
The notion that we should consider consider “all sides” in the global warming debate obfuscates the reality is that there is a scientific consensus that climate change is happening beyond a natural cycle, that we are contributing to it significantly, and that it should be of great concern to us. The vast majority of climatologists are saying this. If one looks hard enough, one can always find exceptions. The reality is that we are way past the point of navel gazing, and we need action urgently.