Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNo Ice At The North Pole: Polar Scientists Reveal Dramatic New Evidence of Climate Change
It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.
The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic - and worrying - examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.
"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water," said Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.
If it happens, it raises the prospect of the Arctic nations being able to exploit the valuable oil and mineral deposits below these a bed which have until now been impossible to extract because of the thick sea ice above.
Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally icefreeNorth Pole this summer are greater than 50:50 because the normally thick ice formed over many years at the Pole has been blown away and replaced by hugeswathes of thinner ice formed over a single year.
This one-year ice is highly vulnerable to melting during thesummer months and satellite data coming in over recent weeksshows that the rate of melting is faster than last year, when therewas an all-time record loss of summer sea ice at the Arctic.
"The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the NorthPole is covered with extensive first-year ice - ice that formed last autumn and winter. I'd say it's even-odds whether the North Pole melts out," said Dr Serreze.
Each summer the sea ice melts before reforming again during the long Arctic winter but the loss of sea ice last year was so extensive that much of the Arctic Ocean became open water, with the water-ice boundary coming just 700 miles away from the North Pole.
This meant that about 70 per cent of the sea ice present this spring was single-year ice formed over last winter. Scientists predict that at least 70 per cent of this single-year ice - and perhaps all of it - will melt completely this summer, Dr Serreze said.
"Indeed, for the Arctic as a whole, the melt season startedwith even more thin ice than in 2007, hence concerns that we may even beat last year's sea-ice minimum. We'll see what happens, a great deal depends on the weather patterns in July and August," he said.
Ron Lindsay, a polar scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, agreed that much now depends on what happens to the Arctic weather in terms of wind patterns and hours of sunshine. "There's a good chance that it will all melt awayat the North Pole, it's certainly feasible, but it's not guaranteed," Dr Lindsay said.
The polar regions are experiencing the most dramatic increase in average temperatures due to global warming and scientists fear that as more sea ice is lost, the darker, open ocean will absorb more heat and raise local temperatures even further. Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, who was one of the first civilian scientists to sail underneath the Arctic sea ice in a Royal Navy submarine, said that the conditions are ripe for an unprecedented melting of the ice at the North Pole.
"Last year we saw huge areas of the ocean open up, which hasnever been experienced before. People are expecting this to continuethis year and it is likely to extend over the North Pole. It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer - it's not happened before," Professor Wadhams said.
There are other indications that the Arctic sea ice is showingsigns of breaking up. Scientists at the Nasa Goddard Space Flight Centre said that the North Water 'polynya' - an expanse of open water surrounded on all sides by ice - that normally forms near Alaska and Banks Island off the Canadian coast, is muchlarger than normal. Polynyas absorb heat from the sun and eat away at the edge of the sea ice.
Inuit natives living near Baffin Bay between Canada and Greenland are also reporting thatthe sea ice there is starting to break up much earlier than normal and that they have seen wide cracks appearing in the ice where it normally remains stable. Satellite measurements collected over nearly 30 years show a significant decline in the extent of the Arctic sea ice, which has become more rapid in recent years.
© independent.co.uk
110 Comments so far
Show AllI may not be the smartest person in the world so I would be grateful if someone could answer a few questions.
Why is the physical north pole called "true north" while the magnetic north pole is not? Isn't the axis of earth located at the magnetic north pole? Then shouldn't that be called the "true north"? Maybe I'm mixing up the two. Also, isn't the magnetic north moving towards the physical north, and with it the axis?
Couldn't the reality be that the earth is rocking a bit from some recent disaster, such as the Flood of Noah (which is in my humble opinion proved beyond doubt when you consider the fashion in which rock layers are formed, and the circumstances needed to convert skeletons into fossils) and that the changes in climate is due to this relatively slow rocking? Greenland was green and fertile some hundreds of years ago; was that due to fluctuations in the alleged solar cycle or due to a magnetic pole situated farther south or north.
Could it be that the outer margin of Arctica is decimated because the magnetic pole is moving closer to the north pole and thus evens out the seasons worldwide and makes the circumference of the north pole smaller.
I'm just sponaneously typing this, so excuse me if my logic is a little topsy-turvy at times. If you understand my theory and arguments please respond and give a layman explanation why it can't be so.
Thanks!
KEM~ Sounds like a sweet ride! Lol
Thanks for your advice, Peaceman's too. I will definitely put it into action. I'm starting a new University in the fall and I'm sure it will be very pro environment. All that I know is that if we are in fact going down we better go down fighting.
Oh i know Savethepolarbears09! I think we all feel the way you do and wish more ppl would get their heads out of their butts and DO something. Also I think before you choose to donate to WWF you should check out this site first www.wickedwildlifefund.com. It may make you change your mind.
And thanks for the www.whyplankton.com site KEM. It was really interesting and informative.
Also I wanted to ask what everyones opinion on the up coming election? I doubt their are very many McCain supporters here, but how do you feel about Obama? Any hope there?
Well its true. Nothing is going to be done by "discussing." Its time for everyone to get off their ass and DO something.
www.wwf.org
Donate money to the wwf everyone!
~Is ~Prof~ still here? He didn't like me saying almost all life will die if we don't stop burning coal, for starters.
Well ~SAVETHEPOLARBEARS~ forget it. When the ocean's methane "burps", the polar bears will be history along with all of us other animals.
The only prayer planet Earth will then have from becomng a larger twin of Mars, is if somehow enough of the ocean's "phytoplankton" survive to help life begin anew.
http://www.whyplankton.com
Argue that one ~PROF~
There won't be any more polar bear jokes or polar bears in Coca Cola ads.
I've skimmed through this little chat and all I'm seeing is how this will effect US. What does this mean for the polar bears?
And what can we do to stop this?
"As a member of the human race, I command the ice in the north to stop melting. There, lets see, hmmmmm, I think I'll look at some porn."
huntz, I almost spit coffee all over my monitor. As much as this article upset me, your post still made me laugh. Thanks.
Dragontoes,
the website is treehugger.com and not dot org. Sorry.
Dragontoes: I don't know what state you live in, but some colleges have an active student body and they are getting the word out and proposing solutions to these, as well as other problems. I do agree with you that the campuses of the 60's were much more radical and active then. 1968 was the year with the most actions not only in the US but throughout the world, especially in France.
KEM gave you good advice to act on. Unless we all participate in doing our part to reverse the present trend toward destruction of the eco-system, and dumping the exploitative, insatiable, ideology of capitalism and replace it with an egalitarian system, there may not be a future. The philosophy of greed, selfishness and self-aggrandizement needs to be discarded. We are all one on this one planet we briefly dwell on.
Ginsburg was ahead of his time. Yes, we do need environmental rallies, but anti-death and destruction rallies as well. For 20, your head is in the right place. Good luck to you, Dragontoes. Oh,one more thing. The web site is treehugger.com, not dot org.
HI ~DRAGONTOES~. Only 20 huh? Ahhh, those were the days, I had a jet black 1948 Buick Roadmaster convertable with a brand new white top. It was loaded with all of the toys, had a power seat that moved back and forth and a rear seat speaker, red horse hide seats, fog lights and dual carbs for the straight eight. I paid $500 for it and could fill the tank with 100 octane, leaded gas, for less than five bucks and it got 20 mpg. I was a prime polluter. A hamburger at MacDonlds was fifteen cents and the girls were wearing "short shorts".
The college students could be the very best chance we have ~TwinkleToes~. What is needed is someone such as yourself to print this article and the comments, make 1,000 copies and hand them out at your campus. Then schedule a student meeting and invite all to attend.
Form a Global Warming club wtih a "catchy name" and make sure you have the very best information available on the subject, don't say or print anything that is incorrect. Get everyone you possibley can involved, for this is by far the MOST important issue humanity has ever faced.
Then do all you can to have other colleges and universities join you club, Maybe the ("S-T-I Club") for "Stop The Insanity". Get some 'T' shirts and baseball hats made. Make it a nation-wide, concerned student effort and then do your protests. One major reason we had college students protesting in the 60s, was because we had a military draft.
Try not to be radical, make your case and make it good. Hope you are still here when you're 30 and always keep in mind, we humans don't fully grow up until were 35.
Well ~TECH 2~ your post here is a prime example of the type of misinformation which has caused governments to not do anything productive to reduce Co2 in our atmosphere.
The consensus of the atmospheric, climatic scientists and geologists is, the EXCESS Co2 in the atmosphere, which is now over 380 PPM and rising daily, is due to humanity burning fossil fuels for the past 200+ years.
Over the next ten years as you stated, the EXCESS methane gas which will also then be in our atmosphere, will cause global warming to run out of control and sea levels will likely rise over 200 feet. All of this has been projected to occur by world renouned scientists and no one has listened to them.
Why? because of people such as yourself, who have muddied the waters and helped the greedy idiots who only wish to sell oil and coal and continue their ways. As far back as 1970, Jacques Costeau warned us to stop using fossil fuels and atomic energy and to stop polluting our oceans. No one listened.
How on Earth can you ignore the obvious? It does not reqire scientific training to observe what is happening. Don't you care, or do you have a plan to evacuate the planet?
I would love to respond to STORMY, because he represents perfectly the attitude and philosophy of a specific segment of the scientific community.
1) your explaination of "how the scientific community works" is only an ideal, it does not always work that way.
2) climate change deniers completely agree that the climate can and does change, the geologic record makes this obvious. therefore any "argument" you bring forward that asserts the "climate is changing" is irrelevant.
Some of the relevant areas of scientific component of the debate are:
1) do we have the ability to predict the climate with a reasonable degree of certainty?
2) what are the implications (not causes) of the current changes in the global climate.
3) AND EVEN: what is the exact nature and character of the current changes.
COMPUTER MODELING
-the limited data available, and the current modeling techniques do not justify the far reaching predictions that are being made. In otherwords most of the far reaching predictions climate change fanatics are completely unjustified by the current state of the science.
I can argue this point on several avenues:
-the mathematics techniques used in modeling
-the oceanic and atmospheric circulation are the most important factors in the earth's energy balance, and we cannot model these systems with any reasonable degree of accuracy.
I wish I could carry on here but time does not permit.
STORMY - over the next 10 years, the truth will emerge clearly. your certainty is unfounded.
From a social/political point of view, if govenments want to play it safe and take drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases - I could honestly care less. Most of what is being proposed has been advocated by ecologists, environmentalists, farmers, informed citizenry etc... for many years anyway.
The science is not conclusive. What I am against is the purposeful encouragement of unfounded FEAR by people who call themselves professionals.
I totally agree Kem! And I actually like your term "war effort". War can have such a massive and domino effect and it makes sense to compare it to the kind of effort that must take place.
Thank you peaceman for your post. I definitely try to do my part in fighting the fight and own a few books already. Thanks for posting the sites. It is always a good idea to visit such sites to make sure I am doing all I can and to stay on top of things.
By asking "what can we do?" I guess I meant it more on the topic of how Kem was talking about how the world leaders must decide to do something. How can we unsure that this takes place? How can we make ourselves heard? Lol, I guess I was feeling a little rebellious when I wrote it and was thinking more along the lines of activism and protests and what have you. Honestly though! Like in the 60's when there were always protests at universities and movements, rallies, and ppl just uniting together to fight for their voice. Where has that all gone? I'm only twenty so what do I know about it, but it seems that there was so much spirit and fight in ppl back then that does not seem to exist anymore. I look around my university and just feel like yelling at ppl to care, to be outraged, to laugh in my face, to do something!! I keep hoping that some wide spread movement will take place and universities around the country will start to spark up and some action will really start happening. So i guess I want to know what we can do to encourage the voice, build interest and passion amongst our communities? Perhaps its because the world is so technical now and ppl are interacting less and less with others due to internet, tv, etc. Anyways, I think I have been reading to much Allen Ginsberg lately haha. He always makes me want to dance in the streets and lead peace rallies, but in this case peaceful environmental rallies lol.
KEM PATRICK: Don't feel bad at all about the zipper thing. It happened to me at a bowling banquet about 39 years ago. I couldn't understand why the other seven people seated at the table were grinning as I stood up and made a toast to somebody. Taking my seat, close to the table, and with a slow movement of the wrist, I realized it wasn't my usually corny speech they chuckled at. Warning: Proceed with caution before leaving a restroom. Make sure all the hatches are closed.
KEM, Right on in your last post. Same thing out here. People with big SUV's and gigantic pickup trucks (never hauling anything either) zooming around at 70-75 miles an hour on the highway.
You nailed it fella! "The Forever Five"...solar, wind, geo-thermal, tidal, and wave energy.
Excellent comments!
I knew you were ~BR~. I thought it was funny. Yes indeed, I did appreciate ~Stormy's~ blog.
52 more years ~Peaceman~? Thank you very much for the thought, but the Mrs. is buying more life insurnace on me now and I've hired a food taster. She also is purchasing pants for me with elastic waist bands and no frontal openings.
HI ~DRAGONTOES~ We can all do what we can possibly do to curtail our fossil footprints, but if you do any driving, you see MOST people traveling ten MPH or more over the posted limits, most vehicles have only one passenger and most are SUVs or pickups where we live, until this year they were the best sellers everyplace in the U.S.
So I believe the vast majority of humanity doesn't have a clue. The rain forests continue to be raped and burned to open land for crops, or to make charcoal. Pollution of our waters and ocean's continues, oil exploration and test drilling continues and a coal fired electrcal plant is being built almost every day someplace in the world, to cite a few problems.
There is ONE solution, ____ ONLY one. ___ Global warming is a "World Wide" Issue. Therefore the world's leaders MUST get together and agree that we must have clean energy and have it soon and stop burning coal ___ (for starters).
Atomic energy may be considered by some to be "clean" energy, and it certainly is far cleaner than burning coal, gas or oil, but uranium is limited and when that supply runs out, we will have to revert to coal or other energy sources.
The other sources ARE, solar, wind, geo-thermal, tidal and wave energy. Since uranium is limited, we may as well start and then continue with the truly clean energy alternatives. A "war type"
effort to have clean energy is the ONLY way. We could have clean energy within four to eight years world-wide and we had better do it.
Some bloggers here have been pissed when I use the words "war effort". Well be pissed! We humans can have a massive "war TYPE" effort like we had during WW-2 and accomplish what we have to accomplish and have a war effort without making and using guns and bombs and killing anyone.
Some people will find a reason to bitch about anything others write here and play their silly games with word usage, I suppose it's an attempt to look superior or smarter. Anyway, we must have a "war type" effort to fight global warming. There is no other way. ___ Do it or die.
Now those are MY opinions and are not scientific opinions and so I don't offer links to back them up. Where was I?___ Well, guess it's time for my warm milk and a cookie.
Hey Kem:
For the record, NOAA is getting a little worried about methane:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080423_methane.html
Just teasing, Kem. I hope I'm half as sharp as you at 72. My kids are razzing me about it already and I'm "only" 56. Stormy knows his/her stuff.
Dragontoes: You're not alone. Most of us feel as you do and similarly frustrated by what hasn't been done but in our own ways, are trying to cope as best we can. I'll be a little presumptive in trying to answer your question.
It starts with each individual. You, me, Loddy, Doddy and everybody, "doing our thing." The task is extremely difficult because of our life-style and the "make and waste" affliction we have for stuff. Innovative THINKERS on this subject have come up with a variety of solutions for sustainable living and ways to heal the environment New products are created everyday with the planet's survival in mind. Goods and services with the slightest bit of harm are constantly introduced. Communities, large and small, are mandating sensible laws to reduce global warming, environmental degradation and sustainability.
Farmer's Markets are growing by leaps and bounds throughout the United States as more people prefer locally grown food (which is also fresher) which helps reduce oil consumption from transporting and storing usage.
There are plenty of books, magazines, and videos on what I think you are looking for, dragontoes. I'll give you several links to review for information.
www.apolloalliance.org
www.treehugger.org
www.simplicityliving.org
(I think they are.org and not .com) Check them out and see what they offer.
ok so after reading all of the comments I have gone from "really" scared to "holy hell!" scared. WTF are we suppose to do? What can we do? I know that there are things individuals can do to help decrease they're "carbon footprint", but obviously that is so trivial to what we are dealing with. We need to start making major changes and fast. It just feels so totally helpless. Everyone keeps saying "we have to change, this isn't working, ppl need to step up", so how do we step up? I mean, there is only so much we can do individually. We need a revolution or something so we can all join together and demand that a new way of life/attitude concerning our planet is taken into action. We all know what needs to happen, but no one is saying how we can do it. I know we are at the mercy of big corporate industries and policy makers, politicians and what not, but this is our country and our planet too and there are a whole lot more of us then the "chosen few" that get to decided how to run our country/earth. What can we do to be heard? How can we demand change? At this point we are so close to reaching a point of no return and it feels like the only thing we are doing about it is bitching and waiting around for things to change. I honestly don't see that change happening unless it is demanded. Maybe I'm wrong, i hope i am. I hope some amazing hero/leader appears from no where and fights this battle for us and saves the day, but somehow i dont see that happening.
Ok I'm sorry I'm ranting. This isn't directed at anyone and is not meant to be taken personally by anyone. I am simply expressing the frustrations that I think we are all feeling. I am just trying to get some brain storming going as far as how to bring the change we want to see. If we want this issue to be taken seriously then we have to become serious about how to make that happen. Its like the majority of ppl (americans anyways) act like making changes for the environment and having to change simple things in our daily lives/routines like something as simple as recycling is some HUGE ordeal and total inconvenience . This totally blows my mind cause if taking care of our planet, our one and only home isn't the most important thing or our number one priority then what in the hell is? The fact that ppl do not feel the same way frightens me almost as much as the issue of our destruction of our planet and ultimately ourselves does. So what can/should we do?
Just read this article for the first time and the numerous comments as well.
My hat off to KEM PATRICK for the reporting of this all-important issue. Look at weather patterns around the world. The issue is REAL!
Happy 52nd anniversary to you and the Mrs., KEM, and may you both stay healthy and happy for the next 52 years.
K E M,
Your moving episode ( for some odd reason )
__ As you arose, preparing for that toast …
__ reminds me of Israel preparing for its
__ getting toasted
Oh, never mind - it's just my own errant neurons dancing …
__ at first deep smiles and nudges of self-appreciation,
but then
__ crash, smash, tinkle - ouch !
__ mushroom sauce on everyone
P. S.
I am fairly certain that _ K E M _ is not having a "keeping straight" issue, correct ?
Namaste « Presence »
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world » — Gandhi
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed » — Gandhi
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — ML King
Occassional "Senior Moments" are normal ~BR~ and are expected from seniors. They are usually overlooked by our "polite" juniors.
I forgot to zip my pants up again last night and as we were having dinner with friends at a posh restaurnat, celebrating our 52nd anniversary, I noticed my unzipped pants. I hurridly correctd the "senior moment" error.
Sadly, I accidenlty caught a piece of the table cloth in my zipper and when we all stood to have a cheer toast for the 52 years of married bliss, there went the table cloth and all of the dishes, wine bottles, ect, which were on the table. A senior moment which will not likely be overlooked, polite friends or not.
I'm glad I came back to this thread. Thought it would be done after the newer very similar article posted. Lots more good info, and thanks Stormy for adding some good background on the debate. Its also nice to know Heidi Cullen isn't just another pretty "weather girl".
Help keep Kem straight when you visit. He had a "senior moment" with 24% and 24x the other day.
Dear Future Archaeologist (who finds this note buried under the remains of our former industrialized city),
We're sorry. We f*cked up. Industrialization was so much fun, at least in the short run. We fast laned, fast fooded, bargain shopped, and fastly got deluded. Sorry we left the place worse off then we found it, we just didn't have time to remedy the polluted. We got scared and built ICBM's. Watch where you step, it's still radioactive for the next 400 millennium.
Yours truly,
The Brainwashed Generation
PS. Please print and redistribute at your local decimation.
Potential melting of Greenland and the Antarctic is actually worse than if all the ice melts. The reason for this is that both Greenland and the Antarctic are now depressed into the Earth's crust by the weight of the ice, both of them rather far below sea level. If these areas were to rebound after the ice melts, as has happened in Scandinavia and Lake Bonneville (yes, these are really things that happen), then what would be deep-water basins over these continents would shallow by some hundreds of feet in the near term and perhaps thousands over time. I don't know why nobody says much about this, but it adds some tens of percent to the overall problem of the ice melting in these regions.
What is wrong with you ~PROF~ with your comments to me, for all to read, writing ___ "KEM, I have called you on this before, blah, blah, blah"?
You're neither my mommy nor my daddy ~PROF~, nor my boss, and stop taking one single sentence I have posted on a blog and ignore all of the rest I have posterd and then attempt to display to everyone that I'm either a dolt or a doomsayer.
I have repeatedly written on many past occasions and here again on this thread, that ("almost all life") on Earth was wiped out within hours by massive methane burps. I have also written that (some bacterial life survived) those previous disasters. Some small animals such as worms and inscects, etc, also likely survived. Those are the opinions of the scientists who study Earth and life on Earth.
The deep sea bacterial life is important, ALL LIFE is important. The bacterial life on Earth is not my "primary" concern ~PROF~, our future generations of human and animal life are. I have stated that life was obliterated "down to", (DOWN TO) the microbal level and some IMPORTANT TO ALL LIFE microbes managed to survive.
You have also previously posted a comment that geologist Michael J. Benton's book, "When Life Nearly Died", did not address the deep sea life issue to YOUR satisfaction. ___ So what? You also made snide remarks about the title of his excellent and very well written and informative book.
What is your opinion on the current thawing of the Arctic ~PROF~? That subject is what this article is all about, not how much and what types of microbes lived through a world wide disaster. And stop writing about what I have posted, you obviously have a beef with me for some unknown to me reason. ___ Piss off ~PROF~, we don't need a distracting shit fight started here by you.
.
.
.
HI ~STORMY~, ___ I love you!
Thank you for your excellent post today at 3:43 pm. It's great!!! I wish that all of you damned denyers who blog stupidity here on the subject would read it and then sneak away. ___ Forever.
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=35979&page=1
"Water is present in the atmosphere in amounts varying from a few tenths of a percent in desert areas to as much as 4 percent in humid tropical areas. The amount of atmospheric water content changes dramatically with temperature and air pressure.
Clouds and fog are made up of water and 70 percent of the earth's surface is covered with water. Approximately 500 billion tons of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are added to the atmosphere each day, of which 98 percent is naturally produced.
In other words, only 2 percent is anthropogenic. Around 1.16 billion tons of water is evaporated each day. At any given time, there are 106 billion tons of carbon dioxide and 12.9 x 106 billion tons of water in the atmosphere.
there is a lot more water in the atmosphere than CO2. Second, the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by human activities is small when compared to the amount of water already in the atmosphere.
Finally we also must evaluate how much heat energy both carbon dioxide and water are capable of absorbing. Pound-for-pound, water absorbs two times more heat energy than CO2. The difference comes from how much vibrational energy the oxygen-hydrogen (OH) bonds absorb than that of the carbon-oxygen (C=O) bonds.
Unless we consider all of the factors that contribute to our climate simultaneously, we are using an unscientific technique known as data selection, which is inappropriate in thorough and accurate research.
By evaluating changes in climate or temperature over shortened periods, such as decades or centuries instead of hundreds of thousands or even millions of years, we either overestimate or overstate the changes that might or might not be occurring. Data selection can be used to verify any reasonable conclusion about climate change.
Because there is a lot more water in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide and because water absorbs so much more energy than carbon dioxide, we should conclude that the effect that these gases have on the warming of the atmosphere is largely caused by water. Man's contribution, although it certainly exists, is more like throwing a stone into the ocean, real and calculable, but barely noticeable."
There you have it, ALL the new hydrogen cars that "the only thing they emit is water vapor" will turn this planet into a sauna !! So much for being green, maybe swampy green !!
S T O R M Y
Thank you for the very detailed reply.
Although I'm hardly qualified in ths field, I've accumulated a life-time of science and engineering perspective that lead great credence to your message above, and I'm wanting others to understand that your description of science and Climate science is accurate and sincere.
Of course many of us bloggers have also experienced a massive degree of insincere reporting and slanting of "facts" to fit various self-serving ideologies -- like the hole-filled official 9!! conspiracy theory.
We are ( and must continue to be ) constantly vigilant for the faux news so abundant everywhere, including items from agent provocateurs here on CD, whose purposes are contrary to TRUTH.
Although I cannot verify your facts, you do appear to be quite sincere and believable to me.
Namaste « Presence »
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world » — Gandhi
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed » — Gandhi
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — ML King
Scary...and lots of wonderful arguments...(but just talk) it's all stuff we've known for years...but obviously the consensus of the majority is still "huh?", "BS" or "who cares" or "God will save us", or even worse "I'll be dead by then"(screw the future generations) ...as long as I've got MY money...MY suv...MY vacation...MY home at least 240 feet above sea level...My...whatever...
But wait ...the politicians all have solutions...their-impotent-corporate-distorted attempts-just won't begin to be seriously implemented for 30 years(70 years too late! we needed to start in the 60's)...and of course they won't work....because they are all built on a for-profit-motive...not a save-the-earth one. The "free market" won't fix this one.
Sorry...
I just hope we're all proven wrong...that's the only thing that would help now...I've got a new grandchild that probably won't see a normal life span thanks to the mess we've made...unless Obama (I know McCain won't) and the other leaders of the world say STOP...and we shift all of our oil subsidies/military/space/pork budgets to developing and implementing worldwide distribution of existing clean technologies over a two to three year period. We built our "war machine" industries quicker than that begining in 1942...imagine what we could do today with our technologies.
Americans are the only ones that can do it...we've got more heart than anyone on the planet when it's all on the line...we don't run or hide...we get'er'done. So far only Germany has gotten serious with solar.
Join me in sending the above message to everyone you know...we can stop this madness in three years...just like we geared up and stopped the madness of WWII. If we still have what it takes that is...and a president that does not have his head up Halliburton's butt.
I have NEVER written a blog, but I must correct some critical information. Molecule for molecule, methane (CH4) is 100 times a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, based on absorption and re-radiation of infrared. However, the typical data one sees is that methane is only 23 times more potent. The reason is that all radiative forcing (greenhouse) atmospheric gases are "indexed or standardized" for a mean residence time of 100 years, the average life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere. Methane only lasts for an average of 12 years before it is oxidized to CO2. Other important greenhouse gasses include nitrous oxide, troposphere ozone, and CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons). CFCs are still released in "small quantities", especially outside the U.S., and may have a residence time between 45-1700 years (depending on the specific molecule), and up to 14,000 times (1.4 Million percent) the indexed potency relative to CO2. The reason CO2 is emphasized in Climate Change is because humans (and ONLY counting fossil fuel emissions) are globally increasing atmospheric CO2 each year by 15.9 billion metric tons.
Many don't understand how scientists work. Science investigations and information outcomes are based on data collecting, inclusion of ALL factual evidence (not pick and choose), experiments, analyses, and logic systems (deductive and inductive reasoning, statistical inference and models, and mathematical models). These approaches are as rigorous and unbiased as possible, and research outcomes are very critically peer-reviewed. The motivation of science is for truth and reality, only limited by current technology and prior established principles and postulates. A simple relevant scientific deduction is:
earth's greenhouse effect was discovered in 1824,
carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases were quantitatively clearly linked with the
greenhouse effect in 1894-1896,
the 2001-2006 global atmospheric input of CO2 from the combustion of fossil
fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) was 28.3 billion metric tons per year,
total natural production (including fires) of CO2 plus absorption of CO2 by oceans,
vegetation, and soils was minus 12.4 BMT/year.
Therefore, in the early 21st century, atmospheric CO2 is INCREASING at the rate of
15.9 BMT/year.
Therefore it directly follows that the earth is increasingly trapping more heat each year. Deductive reasoning leads to a testable hypothesis by science. For the complete tables on regional and global carbon flux go online to: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/version_comparison.html.
Many apparently don't understand the difference between science and policy in the Climate Change issue. What society does with climate science information (and indeed all science information) is in the realm of policy-making; and all the associated politics, economics, regulations, laws, ethics, morality, and of course special interests lobbying. These issues are out of the realm of science. Science can ONLY provide advice on these ALWAYS highly conflicting societal issues. These policy issues and potential decisions based on them directly confront and conflict with: human population growth, increasing economic aspirations, traditional standards of living and financial investments, declining natural resources, energy, and freshwater, and the widening gap between the rich and poor. The political and cultural escape route from tackling these extremely tough and conflicting policy decisions is to confuse and mislead a science-illiterate public and present an illusion that the science is incorrect or controversial. With all the information available today in books, reports, professional and public literature, and the Internet, it is inconceivable to me that a significant segment of American society is so gullible to erroneous and false information.
A significant number of bloggers here and elsewhere suggest that there exists a great deal of data that challenge Climate Change. In reality, there is no credible technical data in existence that contradict current science consensus for Climate Change. Climate scientists and scientists in related fields from around the world have reached consensus that Climate Change is a reality and human civilization is responsible. Of course scientists make mistakes and can be wrong, and in very rare cases a few have been caught "cheating". Eventually, other scientists corrected every single one of these, because science progresses as a self-correcting endeavor. No credible scientist disagrees on the Climate Change issue and its causes, because the amount and clarity of the factual evidence and data are so overwhelming. Several years ago, there were a few scientists outside of mainstream climatology that were on the payroll of fossil fuel interests to debunk Climate Change. Recently, these have almost disappeared as funding from special interests has dried up.
Skeptics often use the "Medieval Warming Period" as evidence of a historical "Climate Change". However, its significance cannot be substantiated by statistical analysis, because of poor historical data quality and inadequate geographical and time-series information. Yes there were some unusually warmer times in Greenland and Iceland, but these were balanced out by cooler periods elsewhere. In other words, unusual regional weather, and not the persistent unidirectional and measured global radiative forcing (heat trapping) that we are currently experiencing. SEE Figure S-1, The National Academies, Report in Brief, 2006, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/Surface_Temps_final.pdf).
Another incorrect skeptic ploy is to blame increased sun energy. The sun indeed is currently a little warmer, and its increased output on earth has been measured as 0.12 watts/m2. On the other hand, the heat increase on earth caused by human greenhouse gasses minus the cooling effect of human sulfate aerosols is 1.6 watts/m2, over 13 times as much. SEE Figure SPM.2, IPCC 2007, Summary for Policy Makers, Working Group I.
Many anti-Climate Change skeptics are unimpressed with our capabilities of climate modeling. Climate Change projections are based on integrating many individual dynamic process models into "climate supermodels": Atmosphere General Circulation Models, Ocean GCMs, Sea Ice, Evapotranspiration, Atmospheric Chemistry, Carbon Cycling, projected scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions, etc. Therefore, there can be an almost infinite variety of models, but approximately 20 are typically used, with 5 major ones. Of course, the models are not perfect and a great deal remains to be accomplished. Models are constantly being tested, refined, adjusted, and new parameters added. The models are routinely tested in their ability to duplicate past known weather and climates, and they are typically excellent in their predictive powers. The largest and stickiest problem is the inclusion of clouds into the models, because clouds contribute to both heating and cooling effects in complex nonlinear ways.
The most important reference on Climate Change is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose 2007 report of almost 3000 pages was written by the top climate scientists from 130 countries and came out as 4 volumes in late 2007 and early 2008. The report was produced with over 450 lead authors, over 800 contributing authors, while an additional 2500 experts reviewed all draft documents. The review process took almost a year and despite that some may believe the report "pessimistic and environmentally extremist"; the conclusions were overly conservative, because predictive science is very conservative, the Climate Change issue has been severely politicized, and importantly there was strong political pressures from the U.S. and China.
The 73-year-old Climate Change skeptic John Coleman was indeed one of the founders of The Weather Channel, but he was shortly released because of incompetence. The rumor of his suing Al Gore for a "climate change hoax" is incorrect. Dr. Heidi Cullen is the current climate expert at TWC and a strong advocate of climatology competence within the American Meteorological Society. She clearly acknowledged that Coleman would definitely not be welcome at TWC. Dr. Cullen received her Ph.D. in climatology and ocean-atmosphere dynamics at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, and before TWC she was a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.
A business professor wrote an anti-Climate Change article in our local conservative newspaper. He identified three "climate scientists" with publications claiming that Climate Change was a hoax. When I investigated their scientific credentials, I found that none were climate science experts, and not even credible scientists. Two were founders or executives of "Friends of Science" and "Natural Resource Stewardship Program" (be cautious of such names). Each of these Canadian institutions was heavily funded by fossil fuel, mining, logging, tobacco, and asbestos interests for the purpose of discrediting legitimate scientists and their research.
Space does not permit a more detailed discussion of climate science.
Actually, Kem, it does comfort me to think that some bacteria and such will survive after we humans wipe out most of our fellow-traveling species.
I hope that whatever evolves next is peaceful.
staying_sane_in_an_insane_world,
If you look at the very beginning of my post, you'll see the "RE:" and that my post was in response to what RoR had quoted from the beginning of an article at Science Daily. It was quite misleading and appeared to suggest that there's volcanic eruptions on the Arctic seafloor that are occurring at this 'very moment' and is the reason for the polar ice melting. Yes, it's possible and has occurred in the past, but nothing in the article states there's 'current' volcanic eruptions in that region. I simply searched for the article (since RoR didn't provide the link) expecting to read about current eruptions melting the Arctic ice and found that was currently NOT the case.
"When either Co2 or methane are excessive, as they currently are, life as we know it is in dire danger of "obliberation" when massive tons of methane burp out as expected when the planet warms suffeciently to allow the "Ocean's methane" to burp. When that event transpires, life on Earth will cease suddenly, ____ like within hours."
KEM, I've called you out on this before. While I absolutely agree that the situation is serious such ill-informed remarks, "that life will cease to exist within hours" do a disservice to your otherwise valid comments.
As I've said before life is extraordinarily resilient and will survive irrespective of global changes. Methane is produced by methanogens, an ancient archaebacterial lifeform chewing on organic material. They will survive. Methanotrophs, that live off and destroy methane will survive and the increased availability of methane may provide new biological niches for newly evolved methanotrophic lifeforms. Even in a worst case scenario the bacterial world will be quite intact.
In a more likely scenario human civilization will crash, additional lifeforms within the current mass extinction will be lost and any remaining humans, if the have any sense, will have to learn to live in harmony with the planet's ecosystems.
Thank you. ☆ KEM ☆
We need more people like you taking notice and doing what they can to seek the needed changes. Your passion and honesty speak volumes about your deep concern for our Earth.
Take Care.
Namaste « Presence »
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world » — Gandhi
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed » — Gandhi
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — ML King
I would like to thank all of those here who posted links about the subject of methane gas and Co2 that proves we humans do have a very serious problem. Personally I do not know of any issue of more importance and there certainly are an ample number of other serious issues. None are as "pressing" that I'm aware of however, any that may kill almost all life on Earth.
Don't come back with nuclear war, or an attack by aliens, etc, please. I know that could do it, but it isn't as pressing as global warming is.
Some have asked if we can determine how soon the ocean's methane may "burp out" into the atmosphere. I don't know, I'm not a geologist or a scientist, or one who had spent their entire adult life studying the planet. I offer the opinions of those who have and are not on the payroll of any government or Exxon/Mobil.
One of the very best and highlu respected by his peers, Michael J. Benton, has witten a book titled, "When Life Nearly Died". He and the National Geological Society state that the Arctic's methane will very likely burp out when thee Arctic thaws and the average daily temp there rises a few degrees.
Ths ios important. __ Once the methane begins to broil out, there is NO turning back, no do-overs or second chances. Once it starts, it will likely play itself out, as it has done previously in Earth's history and nearly all life then died within hours. Do you have children that you love and care for? How about a wife, hubby, or a shack job? Or even a poodle or a cat?
I have suggested thst the very best sources I have found about the Arctic's and ocean's Methane are by: ___Googling ___ Arctic methane gas.___ There are more than a hundred articles published which have been "peer reviewed" and are written by people who have the very highest qualification to discuss the issue.
So when someone here such as ~MiMiCcS~ or ~Geo 522~, ~Lizard~, etc, argues with what I have posted, they are arguing with those highly qualified people, ___ not with me.
BTW, to state that humanity is only responsible for 3% of the Co2 in our atmosphere is not at all reasonable thinking. Co2 has risen dramatically and has increased annually for the past 200+ years, ever since humanity's industrial revolution began in ernest. And if ~MiMICcs~ posts a link that states that 3% figure, it is in direct conflict with the hundreds of highly qualified scientists who have proven it to be otherwise.
Let us think intelligenly about these things.
(1) The Arctic, Greenland and Anatctica are thawing at a rate thst all scientists now find to be DRAMATIC. They are thawing far faster than any had ever predicted.
(2) Some here posted that Greenland was inhabited by the Vikings for several generations. Is that so? What geographical sections of Greenland? The truth is, the first Viking explorers settlers named it Greenland to fool potential settlers with the name and it was anything but Green.
A few settlements were began on geeenland's Southern shore lines and a couple in the interior and most were deserted within the first year an they swiftly migrated to Vinland. Greenland was mostly unihabitable for all but the natives who had learned over time how to cope with nature in that God forsaken land.
Those are some tough people, and they lived with what was afforded them by nature, sticks, stones and driftwood, animal fat and skin and obnes, ivory tusks and teeth and little else. They have a saying ," The only thing left of a seal, bear or whale kill is it's last breath, and a polar bear's liver, which is poisonous.
There were some years when Greenland's average temp was higher in the short summer months than it has been for the past few hundred years, but not warm enough to raise decent crops or livestock.
Now in just the past four years, that has changed, changed dramatically. Greenland is now "green" where it has not been so for thousands and the maority even millions of years and it is predicted to be all ice free within a few short years. That along with the thawed out Arctic, will just enhance global warming. It's termed "FEEDBACK".
For example: If you toss shit at someone, they toss it back and pretty soon you have an Irish shit fight. ___ "Feedback". Maybe there are other examples?
(3) Who can honestly deny that the entire world's glaciers are rapidly melting or have already disappeared? Some here alos wrote that Anarctica is not thawing out except in some small areas. ___ Bullshit.
The British survey team which ahs been studying Anarctica fo rth past ten years or so, was shocked at what they have seen with their own eyes last year and now this year. "It is alarming" is their words.
When scientsts combine the words "alarming with "dramatic" I pay attention. We all should. Google Anarctica and check it out, don't take my words for anything. A few months ago, a gigantic rift several times as long and twice as deep as the Grand Canyon suddenly erupted and that MASSIVE glacier of fresh water ice, is now thawing like an ice cube placed in warm water. ___ Oh-oh.
Well actually, I'm tired of writing about it. If we don't have the world's leaders join in a Pow-Wow, smoke a peace pipe and honestly and sensibly discuss the issue and the true reasons we now have this most serious problem, and then begin a massive "world-wide" effort to attempt to correct it, we won't have a chance. I don't know if we have time left anyway. When pepole say 2050, I want to hit them in the face with a wet turkey carcass. We don't have until 2050, we may not have ten years to act.
I'd better shut it off, this is a long blog.
So we just continue to wait and watch it all happen, as if we're in some mundane experiment that attempts to discover if humans are as stupid as they sometimes seem. I fear in fifty years that this planet will exist with its most interesting life form severely damaged and dimished.
Actually, S17TR25 is presenting important info, esp. the warming period about 1000AD which happened fast and allowed the Inuit to move clear across the Arctic North from western Alaska to Greenland in maybe 150 years -- they had the high-speed transportation of dog sled technology, which required the fuel provided by the big whales, which began migrating north along the Arctic coast as the ice receded -- the Inuit followed the whales all the way to Greenland, replacing the more sedentary Dorset (who lacked both dog sled teams and the means to feed them) all along the way. This is well documented in the archeological record. That turned out to be a climatological blip. What we are seeing now may be similar, but is more likely a Big Warming like that of about 12,000 years ago which may have had a surprising trigger . . .
It sounds like tech2 has maybe lived in the far north and knows that winter still rules. Which it does.
Monday June 30th is the 100th anniversary of the Tunguska Event in Siberia. Recent studies show that the Laurentian Ice Sheet which covered northern North America collapsed precipitously at the time of the Big Warming about 10,000 BC (sorry, on my way to sell at Farmers Market, don't have time to look up links)
That collapse may have been triggered by an airburst of some sort of comet/asteroid, similar to Tunguska but many orders of magnitude greater . . .
Yes, methane may do us in but at least we won't poison the whole planet with radiation in the process, to me the ultimate irony would be that another Tunguska - type explosion occurs over a large city or military installation, is mistaken for a first strike, and triggers the nuclear retaliation response. There have already been near misses in that department, including a small air burst which occurred just south of Eielson Air Force Base ('top cover for America') in the winter of 1995 . . .
My preference would definitely be death by methane . . . try googling Tunguska Event for some interesting info . . . there is a big centennial conference going on right now . . .
Sorry, but the methane is going to go up fast now that I am eating radishes from my garden. The population in DC should drop a little now that they can all have loaded guns in the house. Most humans handle guns like raccoons handle shiny objects.
Now for you NRA people - I am not anti-gun. I am anti drunks, idiots, children, crack heads and criminals who want to fart around with guns or leave them laying around.
If you want a gun for protection, you should get training and practice and keep it under your safe control at all times or else you should get your ass seriously kicked.
At any rate, any people killed off will reduce the population for those who think this is a good idea. Do us white AMERICANS get to pick who gets to live?
TruthAdvocator writes: "A research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) has uncovered evidence of explosive volcanic eruptions deep beneath the ice-covered surface of the Arctic Ocean"
-
I can see TruthAdvocator visited one of my links, and then posted "disinformation" to spread confusion. The link is here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/north-pole-notes/#more-576
See the first comment on the page (comments are at the end of the article). It looks like one of the climate scientists responded to this new bit of "disinformation" by saying: "That's hilarious (if unsurprising). I'll see what I can do..."
TruthAdvocator, can you give me the science? You are using the same argument MiMiCcS used above about CO2 levels being too small to be relevant (see my post above).
Also, we've heard similar arguments before that supposedly implicate volcanoes. From my previous post ("PART 3") above:
"Some disbelievers also claim volcanoes spew out more CO2 than humans. Volcanoes release between about 130-230 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Humans 'belch out' over 130 times that amount, about 27 billion tonnes per year."
Wow, isn't it something to see S17TR5 and tech2 put their reputations on the line as ?S17TR5? and ?tech2?!
S17TR5 presents anecdotal stories in isolated times and isolated places that may or may not have anything to do with average global temperatures.
tech2 tells us we're all ignorant, but doesn't state a single fact we don't already know.
Writting about "sailing to the North Pole" is incredibly misleading and just goes to show you the cheap sensationalism that bias people use.
statistics and scientific articles can be so easily taken out of context if you do not have a basic familiarity with what you are reading about.
No one is talking about a year around icefree north.
The Arctic is not going to turn into a Florida Beach.
Some of you need to go up North and live there for a year to get some context. Perhaps then you will not be so afraid and unreasonable.
1) the tilt of the earth on its axis is what it is, and therefore winter in the North is about 9 months long. No amount of coal burning can directly effect the tilt of the earth.
2) when 24hr sunlight starts in the short summer, things start to happen very quickly. Plant life, animal life, ice melting, all seem to spring into life overnight. But its very short season, and that will never change unless the incident angle for the sun's rays changes.
4) the other thing that shows ignorance is thinking that the Arctic ocean and the coastline is the entire arctic. There are thousands of sq km of tundra and taiga inland with a completely different dynamic.
little snow, much colder. To talk about the arctic climate is like talking about the "climate in North America" Could any one of you give me a list of measureable parameters that describes the "climate in North America"? Would it mean anything?
Its a free world - I would never dream of trying to prevent someone from wallowing in fantasies of doom and gloom. But until you really understand what you are talking about, you opinions are not definitive.
STEVE CONNER - go ahead, sail to the North Pole. It would be a great adventure and really bring attention to climate change.
Global Warming:
900 – 1350 AD … so warm, Greenland was inhabited all year-round. They farmed and fished there for about 6 generations.
1350 – 1500 AD … temps dropped to what we call "normal". Greenland was abandoned for year- round living.
1500 – 1850 AD … so cold on our planet, that New York harbour froze in winter as did the Thames River in England. The population of Iceland and Norway dropped by 50%.
1850 – now … mostly "normal" expect for these last 20 years or so. Planet heating up again.
It would be a good thing to cut the production of carbons into our atmosphere, but it's a stretch to say that we are the cause of Global warming.
The sun operates within certain parameters … obviously.
Here is a link to a pdf describing Obama's GHG emissions reduction plan. The heart of it is a cap and trade with a declining cap until emissions are reduced 80% by 2050. There are some things I don't understand, I don't like the ethanol part unless cellulosic ethanol works out, and "offsets" for projects in developing countries looks like "weasel words". Decreasing "energy intensity" of the federal government is something he can work on right away, but he doesn't mention the DoD. "Low carbon fuels sounds like double talk for ethanol, but could be hydrogen. How does the cap-trade mechanism work? Is some agency going to divide up the GHG pie and re-issue reduced allowances every year?
Is it already too late for all this?
http://obama.3cdn.net/4465b108758abf7a42_a3jmvyfa5.pdf
RE: Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean
ScienceDaily (June 26, 2008) — A research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) has uncovered evidence of explosive volcanic eruptions deep beneath the ice-covered surface of the Arctic Ocean
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140649.htm
The above article states no 'current' volcanic activity on the Arctic seafloor. It states they've just now found actual evidence that these eruptions have occurred in the depths of the Arctic region, which they previously thought impossible due to the enormous depth.
JOHN F BUTTERFIELD
kem patrick has done a lot of research on this issue........it's very close to his heart.
p.s.
Sea level has already caused problems in other parts of the world. We may be past the tipping point if we wait until Disney World is under water before we take action.
KEM PATRICK is correct on the big issue.
Let's remember that sea level is NOT important OTHER than being the canary in the coal mine. I wouldn't care about rising sea level at all if it were the only consequence of global warming. Rising sea level IS important in that it may help us prove to others that global warming IS happening. Then people may do something to stop Earth from becoming the true twin of Venus. Which is the ultimate consequence.
For those of you who disagree, we do know that mankind has survived with glaciers in the mountains and with ice covering the poles. No glaciers and no ice is an unknown.
JOHN SULLIVAN
an expert on overpopulation: how about the pope???????????
PART 3
Carl has more to say about his appearance on the program here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/#more-417
Some disbelievers also claim volcanoes spew out more CO2 than humans. Volcanoes release between about 130-230 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Humans "belch out" over 130 times that amount, about 27 billion tonnes per year.
PART 2
A group of climate scientists deal with these common, and not so common, fallacies on their site here:
www.realclimate.org
In Britain, a TV program appeared on Channel 4, titled, "The Great Global Warming Swindle". It was packed with lies, half-truths, and distortions:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
Carl Wunsch appeared on the program and was very unhappy at how his views were distorted:
Scroll down to comment 109 on this page to read Carl's letter to the producers of "The Great Global Warming Swindle":
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
"I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change - in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced?"
PART 1
MiMiCcS writes: "Now greenhouse gasses and their relative importance are as follows: 67% H20; 15% CO2; 10% O3; 3% CH4; 3% N20. The focus on CO2 is not warranted. We are responsible for 3% x 15%- 0.5% greenhouse effect of CO2."
MiMiCcS has fallen into the trap any layman without scientific knowledge can fall into: my everyday common sense tells me this can't be right! The trouble is, everyday common sense is a poor guide in the world of science - that's because our faculties evolved to AID OUR SURVIVAL, NOT to aid our understanding of the world. If that wasn't the case, top scientists wouldn't have any prestige because we'd all be equally good at understanding.
Ozone makes up just 0.00006% of the volume of the atmosphere, yet that trace amount protects life from harmful UV rays. In the 1980s, governments around the world banned CFCs to prevent further depletion of the ozone layer.
Facts about ozone here:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/ozone.html
To claim that CO2 makes up a small percentage of the total gases in the atmosphere, and humans add an even smaller percentage to that, therefore CO2 - and, in particular, human CO2 emissions - cannot have any noticeable effect on the climate, is unscientific reasoning.
"Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter":
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638
And just think of all the waterfront land for development that will become available when all the ice melts!
Hey, I'm just sayin' is all.
MapleFudge:
Thank you for your poem, if it was yours. If your quoting, thank you still.
This is awful news. Horrid.
Thanks everyone for all the laughs. I´ve been busting a gut for about 20 minutes. I guess the insanity of it all is sometimes best expressed with humor. Especially in cases when implications are that our planet is coming to a quick and turbulent end:
I think I'll look at some porn
Who will die with the most toys? Santa Claus (good one!)
Gu-by Disney World
Hahahahahaha
Here is the funniest part of all:
¨If it happens, it raises the prospect of the Arctic nations being able to exploit the valuable oil and mineral deposits below these a bed which have until now been impossible to extract because of the thick sea ice above.¨
Geeez I think I just heard the sound of Cheney wetting his pants with glee
No ice floes already? There goes my retirement plan.
"but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year"
Ice is only going to disappear in the summer, not the entire year. As for mans history, it seems we only have sea ice records from what, 1979?
Do people forget the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)when Greenland was much greener, this was when the Vikings settled in Greenland between 800-1300 AD. Following this, temperatures dropped and we entered the Little Ice Age (LIA) from 1300-1850, and the Vikings got cold and left. Since 1850, temperatures have risen, yet satellite temperature measurements of the last 23 years show little 'Global" warming. Most temperatures used by IPCC are from surface stations, with the Northern hemisphere weighted out of proportion, including North American and Europe, some of the stations are influenced by the urban island heat effect.
In any event, consider what the 2001 IPCC report says about the MWP and LIA, saying "current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.
So maybe thats whats happening, a regional warming effect, like MWP. The ice in Antarctica has been increasing for 30 years, except for the smaller ice in the West. Another MWP might be a very good thing.
But CO2 has been going up. Ok. Reality check. Man emits 3% of the worlds CO2 into the atmosphere. Methane has been virtually stagnant for the last 10 years, despite an increase last year, and yet man is supposed to account for 50% of Methane (who stole our methane).
Now greenhouse gasses and their relative importance are as follows
67% H20
15% CO2
10% O3
3% CH4
3% N20
The focus on CO2 is not warranted. We are responsible for 3% x 15%- 0.5% greenhouse effect of CO2.
For those with open minds.
http://junkscience.com/Features.html
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/
I mean, even Real Climate says this article is meaningless.
"Gu-by Disney World." See KEM, its not all doom and gloom.
~byronw~ [June 27th, 2008 7:00 pm] wrote:
"Kem, I've been going to ask for some time about the 'suddenness' of the methane burp. You said there was an increase of 6% in the methane this past year which works out to nearly 1% in the last couple of months average. Is there some place to verify that figure?
"My thinking is that this is an exponential curve kind of thing. It should be possible to predict within a few months when the massive release of methane will occur by the measurements of the increase year by year. Is there some web location that tells what the percent increase is in each of the past several years or ideally by month?"
Here is a very informative picture of what's happening with GHGs:
THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Take a look at Figure 2. Although the article states, "The growth rate of methane has declined substantially since about 1992. The cause of this is likely related to several factors, including changes in emissions related to changes in the former Soviet Union and the short lifetime of methane (8-9 years) resulting in a pseudo-equilibrium between sources and sinks on this time scale," the new figure (lower left plot) shows methane concentration starting to move upward again in the past year. I think it is too soon to tell if it's a sign of a new trend or just typical variation, but it's worth paying close attention to.
Here are some related articles about methane clathrates (you will have to add the usual http:// stuff in front, as CD's software evidently doesn't like URLs):
___ news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5321046.stm
___ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
___ www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080528140255.htm
And a wiki article on global warming:
___ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
[Sorry if this posted more than once - CD's tools need to be upgraded.]
for more info on the subject:
http://oldsecretsandlies.blogspot.com/
Those who want to witness the ice disappear can watch here:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/index.html
But will it actually disappear?
No physical precautions will work. Start (or keep) meditating. Good luck (and good-bye).
BYRONW writes: "Are there science websites which have the actual figures?"
Try:
www.realclimate.org
There's nothing on the topic you mentioned, but if anything of significance comes up - vis-a-vis global warming - it'll be posted on realclimate.org.
It's a site set up by climate scientists, so don't expect a lot of easy to read articles. Click on "Index" and use the search box for articles of interest.
There's even an article here about this article!!!:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/north-pole-notes/#more-576
Thanks, Kitaj, for mentioning the overpopulation problem. My favorite radio talk show host agreed to discuss it on his program if I could refer him to an expert he could interview. Can anybody suggest someone?
We need to phase out fossil fuels as fast as possible, in the U.S., and globally. The national network I direct, GlobalWarmingSolution.org, released its emissions reduction proposal, "Rosie Revisited: A U.S.-Led Solution to GlobalWarming", www.globalwarmingsolution.org , in July, 2007. (DVD also available) The report demonstrates the technological and economic feasibility of reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2025. In addition, the straightforward methodology we employed for the U.S. energy system could be applied in countries around the world so that these urgently needed emissions reductions are global. It is the most aggressive emissions reduction proposal of any U.S. national environmental group. Help us make it happen!
byronw-the beautiful thing about methane is that it is 21 times worse than CO2 and THEN it degrades slowly (over 20 some years) into CO2.
Just returned from a 2 week trip with the family to Seattle and back (Wisconsin)in our Corolla-averaged 40mpg the entire trip. With five of us in the car, at least we weren't polluting as much as we COULD have been.
Never been out that far and found it interesting to see the wind farms in Minnesota along I 90 and then NOTHING but oil derricks (spelling?) in Wyoming. And all that wind...
byronw:
Have a ball!
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/
All the data you want from all around the world.
Just checking to see if my new password worked-mine got changed on me somehow. Mildly annoying.
You cannot provide empirical data to the average human and expect a change in behavior.
Our current average human will continue to contribute to climate change and global warming until they are unable to go about their robotic preprogrammed routines. Only when an obstacle appears before them that brings about a significant emotional response, and that also does not allow them to complete their desired task, will they change only enough to continue their routine.
Even with the mounting evidence of global warming I can look outside and see 90% of the cars, pickup trucks, SUVs and Hummers stuck in traffic with only one occupant. We are seeing more changes in behavior due to gas prices than global warming. It will be this way until global warming becomes a personal problem.
It's too bad that the vast, frozen north is thawing and industrializing. Humans have always known that the vast, frozen north was so large it could never be populated or subdued by man.
In our psyche, the shape of the earth has always been an hourglass, not a sphere.
Kem, I've been going to ask for some time about the 'suddenness' of the methane burp. You said there was an increase of 6% in the methane this past year which works out to nearly 1% in the last couple of months average. Is there some place to verify that figure?
.
My thinking is that this is an exponential curve kind of thing. It should be possible to predict within a few months when the massive release of methane will occur by the measurements of the increase year by year. Is there some web location that tells what the percent increase is in each of the past several years or ideally by month? By plotting that curve exponentially ..
.
Oh, and I read the number somewhere as 21 times that of CO2 but I certainly agree with you on the danger, just a slight diff on how sudden. We'll probably see increases of 1 percent a month, then 2 percent the next month then 4 percent as the exponential curve goes wild. Sound about right? There's a few months of lag time as the increase rate increases, just like the warming of the oceans only on a much faster scale of months, right? I'd expect 'foreign' science reports that the methane increased 2 percent last month. Something like that.
Are there science websites which have the actual figures?
Byron
come children, little minnows
gather round my ancient feet
in your tatty fish-skin coats
give me your sharkest smiles
your salted eyes like wet beach stones
when I was little like you an old man told me
there's metal below
then dirt
then bones
kitaj: Actually "white folk" in the the US are doing the same as their Italian and French cousins. The fertility rate is below replacement. The population is inceasing because of immigration and hispanics still have traditional large families. Of course these folks strive to become "regular" Americans - wealthy, overweight and using a disproportionate share of the world's resources. So its really the same thing. Too many people in the world, and way too many spoiled Americans.
Methane is a more potent GHG than CO2 but it doesn't last a fraction as long. A molecule of methane becomes a molecule of CO2 when its oxidized, however. So the end result is someplace between 1 and 24 times, but from a positive feedback source, it would add to what we re already making.
There was a post the other day asking about "latent heat". Water absorbs a lot of heat going from solid at 32F to liquid at 32F. That heat is now going to warm the oceans in addition to the loss of reflectivity. We really could be in bad shape.
Maybe the posts above are right and the supervolcano under Old Faithful will put us all out of our misery.
"If you had one PPM of Co2 and one PPM of methane, the methane would be equivelant to 25 PPM of Co2."
I agree, KEM. Current methane concentration of 1.7 PPM is equivalent to 42 PPM CO2.
What you have stated above is that methane is 25 TIMES as potent per molecule as carbon dioxide, NOT 25 percent more potent.
(Or, if you prefer, methane is 2400 % more potent)
Also,
One of the main problems, IMO, is the human Ego's refusal to face the overpopulation problem.
People in affluent countries who should be aware of the population overshoot problem still rationalize the ego-NEED to reproduce, to fulfil themselves by having children despite the fact that a US child consumes 20 times as much energy and generates 20 times more pollution that an average child on this planet.
Everyone assumes that they have the right to reproduce no matter what. Does anyone here see any way to challenge this deep-seated ego-demand, and insist that people grow-up beyond it? Just imagine the uproar! Another reason why I feel it is too late.
Hi Brian, I understnd methane is from 23 to 30% more potent than Co2 as a Greenhouse gas. If you had one PPM of Co2 and one PPM of methane, the methane would be equivelant to 25 PPM of Co2.
Currently the Co2 in our atmosphere is 385 PPM, or 35 above the tipping point. Methane rose 6% last year, after being stable for many years. When the methane goes beserk we won't have a prayer. However we say it, the Arctic's methane is the major concern.
I mis-typed the feet there ~Gotta get off the Grid~. Sorry.
Shit, 240 feet? Well, there goes Disney Land too.
Nobody wants to hear this, especially Bush and the oil and coal men. They're like kids, who think they will live forever.
Madrone,
Yeah, I was going to mention the salinity factor. It's been a while since I looked at the info on all of this, but if I recall correctly, wasnt the shutdown of the global ocean current system a major factor in the Permian dieoff?
Anyway, I am sorry but I just have to laugh when people in denial say we arent facing global catastrophe and that we are going to techno-fix our way out.
We flaunted our way of life in everyones face and now they want the same life. So, in the next 10 years, how many cars are India and China going to put on the road? I dont remember the exact figure, but it is probably at least 100 million.
If the US had had any kind of sane and intelligent leadership over the past 40 years, we could have influenced the world in a sustainable direction. Now I fear, it is too late.
I, for one, keep waiting to hear some good news on SOMETHING, ANYTHING!!!!
Slip sliding away.
Guess its "bend over" time all around. We are such a noble species!
Kem, its even worse. According to the USGS the Antarctic ice sheets will raise the sea level by 240 ft.
I posted the link near the top.
"Methane is 25% more potent as a Greenhouse gas than Co2 is."
KEM, that's 25 TIMES (on a per-molecule basis), not percent. Twenty-five percent difference would hardly be worth mentioning.
And the melting glaciers are not sea ice and when Greenland thaws out, sea levels will rise 20 feet. When the fresh water in Anarctica melts, sea levels will rise another 180 feet. ___ It's rapidly melting. Gu-by Disney World.
Melting sea ice won't raise the sea level, but it will change the salinity levels. The fresh water dillutes the salt water. The lower the salt content, the "lighter" the water.
Our climate is driven, in part, by ocean currents that are a part of a cold-water-sinking, warm-water-rising heat transfer machine. Those currents are already being effected by the changes in salinity and that change destabilizes climate even further.
So now both posts show up. This Word Press feature CD has is crap. Sorry for the double post.
1
Those who seek material wealth will overcome all obstacles to achieve that wealth.
Sheets of ice are obstacles.
I ask - what is, exactly, the 'evidence of volcanic activity'?
Volcanic activity is a most convenient means of removal of such obstacles, but uncontrollable and unreliable.
Nuclear activity would be not only convenient but also more controllable and more reliable.
Those who seek to overcome all obstacles to acquire material wealth are unlikely to rely on unreliable means such as volcanic activity, are they?
I'm just sayin ...
If you Google Arctic methane gas you will find a hundred or more articles on the subject. Most are witten by highly qualified and respected geologists and scientists.
One article which is written by Kathy Walter of the U of Alaska Institute of Arctic Biology states:
"The melting of the Arctic's permafrost is a TICKING TIME BOMB. A global tragedy of momential proportions in now unfolding at the top of the world and the human race is all but oblivious to what is happening."
As to the volcano eruptions? The amount of fossil fuel we burn annually, is equivelant to eruptions of 17,000 volcanos the size of Hawaii's Kilauea. Earth's current global warming is caused by us.
If the Arctic does not totally melt this summer, it surely will next year. I hope none of you have children for their sake. I have no idea of what to say to my grandkids, except perhaps: "I am so sorry that we adults screwed it up for you, we had ample warning."
Now I wrote this a few minutes ago and was blocked by "Word Press". If it happens again, this will be my final post here and the global warming denyers can have their fun here at Common Dreams without any more of my interferance.