Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate Change At The Poles IS Man-Made
Scientists refute sceptics by proving that human activity has left its mark on the Arctic and Antarctic
Changes to the climate due to human activity can now be detected on every continent, following a study showing that temperature rises in the Antarctic as well as the Arctic are the result of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.
Melting ice in the polar regions will have a major impact on future sea levels. (Photograph: John McConnico/AP) It is the first time scientists have been able to prove the link between the temperature changes in both polar regions are down to human activity and it also undermines climate sceptics who believe the warming trend seen in the Arctic in recent decades is part of the climate's natural variability.
The findings contradict the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which said that Antarctica was the only continent where the human impact on the climate had not been observed.
The new study shows that Antarctica has been caught up in the changes to the global climate over the past 60 years and that this warming cannot be attributed to natural variations.
Using four computer models and data from dozens of weather stations sited around both the North and South Poles, the study conclusively shows that humans are responsible for the significant increases in temperatures observed in the Arctic and the Antarctic over the past half century.
"We're able for the first time to directly attribute warming in both the Arctic and the Antarctic to human influences on the climate," said Nathan Gillett of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who led the study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
The analysis has also shown there is a significant change to the Antarctic climate caused by human activity.
Peter Stott of the Met Office Hadley Centre, who took part in the modelling analysis, said: "In both polar regions the observed warming can only be reproduced in our models by including human influences - natural forcings [increases] alone are not enough.
"For a long time, climate scientists have known that Arctic areas would be expected to warm most strongly because of feedback mechanisms, but the results from this work demonstrate the part man has already played in the significant warming that we've observed in both polar regions.
"There was a clear detection in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a human influence on the climate. We had shown we had detected the human fingerprint in both regions."
In the Arctic, the most visible effect of warmer temperatures has been the disappearance of the sea ice which floats on the Arctic Ocean. In 2007, the sea ice reached an all-time summer minimum, which was nearly reached again this year.
In the Antarctic, global warming has had the greatest impact on coastal areas and the Antarctic Peninsula, which has seen the greatest increases in average temperatures in the region, leading to the disintegration of ice shelves and the speeding up of the flow of glaciers to the sea.
The picture in the Antarctic has also been obscured by the effect of ozone depletion, which has tended to lower temperatures and so counteract the effect of global warming within the region. However, with the recovery of the ozone layer, scientists are expecting to see even greater increases in Antarctic temperatures in future.
Andrew Monaghan of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said the study clarifies human impact on two regions that are notoriously variable in terms of climate. "The polar regions exhibit the largest climatic variability on Earth, so detecting and attributing climate changes has been more difficult than elsewhere," Dr Monaghan explained. "The study is important because it formally demonstrates the human contribution for the first time."
- Posted in
63 Comments so far
Show AllOne more time: reversing climate change at the poles WILL BE man-made.
I recommend man-made restoration of the ice floes to reflect sunlight back into space. I also recommend cheaply simulating jet contrails, which are known to cool the US (except on 9/11/08 when all jets were grounded, the US temperature rose 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit).
So who wants to actually do the work to save the planet for a horrible disaster? Which charity wants to fund it?
Mmm....
Just waiting for the methane to melt.
well, we could all donate our ice cubes instead of putting them in our 'daquiris'................
or we could stop eating dead animals, or using land to grow crops to fuel vehicles, or buy locally grown produce, or stop wasting funds on particle accelerators (that might eventually create a mini 'big bang' and blow us all to smithereens), or stop building nuclear power plants, or get rid of nuclear weapons, or stop wars, or stop the boiling of the ionosphere (haarp),or save the bees, or save the seas, or, or, or..........
or we could wait for the methane to burp up...............
And here in Southwest Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, South West Virginia is where we are creating the global meltdown. Sean Hannity says drill baby drill ! When the hurricane came and there was no gas, he was all up in the air about price gouging at the pumps, a while back he was all up in arms about eminent domain. He and Bill Oreilly are so brave and bold as to invite their audience to let them know and they will get to the bottom of it. Well Mr. Hannity and Mr. Oreilly why do you not even acknowledge these 350 Million year old Appalachian mountains are being gouged and blown up ? We are loosing our home. When a hurricane hits a large city, the politicians are on the news saying we will rebuild stronger and better than ever. These beautiful, scenic God given Appalachian Mountains can't be rebuilt. They are being decapitated for the mega profit machines love of money. I doubt He put them here to be destroyed while speeding up global warming.
http://www.wisecountyissues.com
Future Fox News: Welcome to the new Fox News studio on the New Jersey palisades overlooking what's left of the skyscrapers sticking up out of the water on permanently flooded and abandoned Manhatten Island.
Penguins on the beaches of Brazil as far north as Rio de Janeiro; oil slicked by the hundereds...not enough data...7 were counted in 2007 ... this year (winter moving into spring) thousands up and down the coast...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100204225.html
The southern state of Santa Catarina saw its first ever cyclone in 2003.
thankyou for the penguin article old goat;
these bizarre happenings are happening all the time now..............
but don't you know there's an 'impotent' election taking place..............
Read the article.The study formally demonstrates the human contribution for the first time...... Got it? FOR THE FIRST TIME! That means that before this article there was NO formal demonstration of this human contribution. Thus the idea that global warming is due to man is supported by only ONE study. If this study is wrong, then it follows that there is no formal demonstration that global nwarming is man-made. So the "deniers" have been right until at least now: there was no proof that global warming is man made. Is this study correct? No idea since we don't see the argument...we are expected to accept it.................................show me the argument............lizard
For the Antarctic, this is the first confirmation.
Lots of studies show anthropogenic global warming effects on the Arctic.
Javier,
Please reread the first sentence: "Changes to the climate due to human activity can now be detected on every continent"
This study only refers to polar melting, not all the many other causes and effects of climate change, which have been amply demonstrated. You say "show me the argument" but I suspect if you still do not believe climate change is
real
happening
human caused, and
extremely destructive
it is EITHER because you are not willing to read, listen to and critically, logically consider ANY evidence no matter how well researched, documented and presented it is... OR because you are a lying troll. No insult intended. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But first go to
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
or any one of 12 million other sites you can find by searching Climate" "Change" "Evidence". And if that's not good enough, look it up in Nature, one of the most trusted scientific journals in the world. And please, please, please, whatever reason you have for denying science, evidence, reality and trust in other human beings who have (mostly) the good of humanity and the planet at heart, find a way to work through it and convince your friends to do the same so we can get on with the fairly important job of saving civilization from near-certain destruction.
(OK maybe that overstates it a LITTLE. It's actually not nearly certain, it's only highly probable.) If you want to help the world, please examine why you are unwilling to accept clear scientific evidence of looming and entirely preventable destruction.
The study actually referred to temperatures, even if the article chose not to mention this.
"It found that the average temperature in the Arctic has risen by 2ºC over the past 40 years - much higher than the global average - and by about 1ºC in the Antarctic which though less is still significant. There are some areas of the Antarctic that have not warmed and the temperature rise is taken from an average."
Nobody denies climate change. We are skeptical of the tehory that the warming of the last 150 years (0.6 deg C) is caused mostly by man and will trigger catopstrophic global warming. A theory by definition means it has not been proven. If it is proven, it becomes a law.
As for Nature being one of the most trusted scientific journals in the world, I must wonder if you have ever subscribed to them or read their articles. The articles are very brief without much detail, you basically have to take the author(s) at their word, as does the reviewer.
One of the reason to be skeptical is that most funding for the research to prove global warming hypothesis is government driven. If you have read various proposals on carbon caps and trading, carbon tax and credits, and the various industries that seek to profit from it then you will certainly question what you are told. Science works by skepticism, theories can only be disproven, religion is an act of faith that follows the consensus. Unfortunately, the money available to do the research needed to disprove AGW is in limited supply (even Big Oil is withdrawing it's support), and papers and reviewers tend to not want to publish the papers of skeptics since it has become politicized.
The other reason AGW can not be proven or disproven is we really do not have very good global data past 50-60 years. Paleo-climatology is an attempt to reconstruct historical climate from indirect methods, but there are very large uncertainties at play.
But lets look at the climate change of the last 100 K years
14,000-100,000 BC Ice Age
14000-8000 BC: end of glaciation; sudden and strong temperature fluctuations
8000-6000 BC: rapid warming and melting of mountain glaciers; humid environment in the Middle East and savannah conditions in the Sahara
5000-3500 BC: Post-Glacial "Climatic Optimum": summer temperatures in NW Europe 2-3 deg C above that of the present day; monsoonal rains penetrate the Sahara; extensive irrigated agriculture in Mesopotamia. Arctic sea ice likely less than today.
3500-1000 BC: drying of the Sahara (3500-1000); desertification and salinisation in Mesopotamia, Nile flow reduced; sharp decline in temperature about 1500 BC with a strong advance and initiation of new mountain glaciers.
900-300 BC: Iron Age Epoch: Cool and wet in northern areas; strong regrowth of bogs after a much drier period
400-800 AD: severe North Sea floods; growth of Alpine glaciers
800-1200 AD: Secondary (Early Medieval) Climatic Optimum: summer temperature at least 1 deg C above present day; drier in NW Europe; Viking colonisation of Greenland
1430-1850 AD: Little Ice Age (polar continental climate): cool in W. Europe and the Mediterranean; temperatures 1-3 deg C lower than at present; re-advancement of mountain glaciers; severe winters
1850 AD -present: maritime Atlantic climate; global temperature rise 0.5 deg C; N.Atlantic sea surface warmer; increased rainfall in NW Europe."
Nobody in their right mind denies Climate Change. The myth that earths climate was at equilibrium before the Industrial Age is unbelievable and not based on facts. But certainly, we should be monitoring climate closely since any changes are a threat, but when you look at some of the temperature measuring stations we have you would realize nobody is really taking it seriously enough to fund better data collection. Instead, the focus seems to be looking at ways to adjust past data, or infill missing data, to fit the AGW theory.
Nothing in science is proven. And theory is stronger than law, which is usually an empirical, low-order approximation.
"Nothing in science is proven" I stand corrected.
I was being kind to AGW by calling it a theory, it is more of a hypothesis which is simply an educated explanation, based on observation.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.
The recent cooling since 1998 was not predicted by the GCM's on which AGW theory/hypothesis relies on. Thats the only test possible except for waiting for another 50 years of so or data. So it is not even a theory. Let me be careful though. CO2 can cause warming. Mans CO2 certainly contributes to rising CO2 levels. The extent of the warming caused by CO2 and man is what is questioned, and since CO2 is present in levels of 38 molecules per 100,000 molecules of air, and mans contribution is 1 additional molecule of CO2 per 100,000 molecules every 5 years, then the hypothesis that catastrophic global warming as a result of mans CO2 is not likely, seems reasonable.
As for theory being stronger than law. A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. So IMO, the Law of Gravity and Laws of Thermodynamics which have stood the test of time are stronger than the theory or hypothesis of AGW
There has never been a Law of Gravity; the first explanation was Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation, updated more recently by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. And the AGW greenhouse effect is based on the Theory of Quantum Mechanics.
Your focus on 99,962 non-CO2 molecules per 100,000 shows you have no understanding at all of quantum mechanics , which effects occur in the CO2 molecules.
And you don't know the difference between climate and weather, either.
yes and for the first time, theories and alternative reasons to placate deniers have finally been abandoned.
please give me ONE study that definitvely attributes global warming to anything else.............
The models have spoken, it must be true. LOL. These must be the same models financial instititutions used to show that sub-primes would not be a problem if they could manage the risk of default with CDS's, and that the current crisis is man made by greedy consumers.
What a terrible article though, no numbers at all. FWIW, average global temperatures today are at 1980 levels and it snowed in London in October for the first time since 1922 as the House of Commons was debating strategies to combat Global Warming.
There has been global warming in the past century, it's just not due mainly to man, and it has been a good thing, and it is unlikely to be runaway global warming. If anything, history says we are due for another ice age, sooner or later, nobody knows. Now that is something real and to be feared. Guess thats why we want to control Africa and South America (Bush has land for a big ranch in Paraguay).
OK, one more time.
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Read the evidence. See what the vast majority of scientists in climate and related fields have to say. Stop paying attention to
1. people who have a short-term financial interest in denying the truth, And
2. people who have a psycho-political-religious reason to deny the truth (such as needing to bolster Strict-father morality--from an imaginary patriarchal god figure down through reactionary warlords at every level of business, government, religion, society and family--against the essentially democratic nature of real, consensus-oriented science and sensory-based reality. "If they can make you believe absurdities..." etc. (Voltaire.) And
3. people who have been fooled by either 1. or 2.
What an absurd argument to try to discredit computer models by saying that they may (or may not ) have been used by greedy and conscienceless people for their own ends. When done well, computer models are an excellent, accurate and useful tool. So of course they are used by evil people as well as credible scientists. By the way, I don’t know of any models that show sub-primes wouldn’t be a problem. Could you point some of those out? And apparently you’re not up on the latest—the financial crisis WAS caused by greedy consumers, if by consumers you mean psychopathic lenders, bankers and speculators.
You are either lying or mistaken about temperatures; they have heated up dramatically since the 1980s. Part of global climate catastrophe is changes in weather patterns, wind directions, ocean currents and such, and so there WILL be local anomalies. If you understand that please stop using such information to deceive people; if you do not understand it please do some reading or at least watch some docudramas or something before you unintentionally spread more ignorance and dangerous complacency to other less-gifted individuals.
The article was a perfectly reasonable summary of the study, not an attempt to show the study itself. Most people won’t read articles with a lot of numbers, and while it would have been nice to have a link to the study, (there is a link to the Independent/UK original, and many links from there to other articles and studies) you can do a computer search for as many electronic reams of evidence as you could read in a lifetime.
Again, VIRTUALLY ALL CREDIBLE SCIENTISTS AND CHILDREN’S BOOKS AUTHORS ARE IN AGREEMENT that the Earth is warming, it is caused by greenhouse gases emitted by human activity, and it is and will have disastrous effects on civilization. Come on, children’s books authors! What more do you need?
and if W wants to head for Paraguay I’m all for it. Maybe he can take Rove and Alito and Thomas and some of his other friends with him.
Now can we please stop arguing about vapid and obstructionist non-theories and get on with the important business of buying windmills and solar panels for poor people? Please?
Sorry, here is the temperature chart from 1980 till today
http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54eeb9dc18834010535b4046b970b
"Again, VIRTUALLY ALL CREDIBLE SCIENTISTS AND CHILDREN’S BOOKS AUTHORS ARE IN AGREEMENT that the Earth is warming, it is caused by greenhouse gases emitted by human activity, and it is and will have disastrous effects on civilization. Come on, children’s books authors! What more do you need?"
Oh my, I am on the wrong side of Childrens Books Authors. I must be wrong. Sorry.
But wait a minute, these same authors also told me there was such a thing as Santa Clause. I remember now, it was a conspiracy against kids. Jeez, how to explain to the Kiddies Santas toy factory sunk due to the ice melted and no toys this year.
Good news though, Arctic ice making a comeback
http://eva.nersc.no/vhost/arctic-roos.org/doc/observations/images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
As for solar panels, ever hear of Nitrogen Trifluoride, a GHG 17,000 more times potent that CO2. Make more solar panels make more Nitrogen Trifluoride?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/27/shocker-solar-panel-manufacturing-creates-potent-ghgs/
Mimi:
Your opinion please on the graphs linked below. They indicate we are at a somewhat higher global temperature than in 1980. Actually 1950-1980 is the GISS baseline, and the global mean is now 0.5 deg C above THAT baseline and 0.8 deg above 1880-1920. Arctic temperatures are up 2 deg C.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Although the CO2 increase has been relatively linear, going gradually from 1.5 ppm/year to 1.8, the temperature curves look exponential. This basically agrees with the models that have Dr. Hansen so worried. Even if the models are only rough approximations, we will soon be at the point where the CO2 GHG effect completley obscures the effects of solar activity cycles, El Nino cycles and global dimming.
The models do appear to be constantly tweaked, and early models already had the earth cooked, but they agree with the evidence and scientific fact. Air and ocean monitoring prove that CO2 is increasing at a rate consistent with CO2 produced by fossil fuels. CO2 does absorb certain wavelengths of infrared radiation, and increases the energy of the atmosphere. More CO2 means a warmer atmosphere. The only important thing in doubt is WHEN (not if) we hit the tipping point.
If the theory is correct, we will have global temperature spiking to 1 deg or more above the 1950-1980 baseline in the next 4-10 years and a lot more polar melting and glacier retreat.
Financisl institutions and capitalism are man-made structures ...
NATURE is not ---
The planet is a living organism as are our own bodies --
We have sickened ourselves, sickened and destroyed animal species, and
fatally polluted the planet.
Patriarcy is really smart about really stupid things.
When you're agreeing with Repugs and Rush and the rest of the neo-cons
and Bush/Cheney you're really lost.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
please give me ONE study that definitvely attributes global warming to anything else............
Well, we used to have a premier upe here in the North/Canada who attributed climate change to dinosaur farts. More seriously there are many who see this as just part of a natural cycle where the globe heats up naturally.
What's more important is that all mainstream North American parties see climate change as a fantastic business opportunity.. or as one so-called "free thinker" said-- "an inconvient truth" - whereas the competing economies of China and India will take the full brunt of the catastrophic climactic effects of droughts, water shortages, killer heat and smog.
Don't feed the trolls. Get involved in a solution. Here is one. Free Public Transit. It works. It is here and now.
http://freepublictransit.org
Palin had the witch cast out of her burning bush and received revelations.
Global warming is caused by not shooting enough wolves and caribou from helicopters.
Drill baby drill will cool the earth by getting all that oil out of the ground.
Flirting on camera with horny old right wing white male bigots will cause icy stares from their wives and cool the planet.
Every time I see ~MIMICCS~ show up on a thread about global warming, it reminds me of seeing a new gopher hole in our garden, a damaging rodent which is very difficult to eleminate.
Of course even gophers have a purpose and so does MIMICCS. Were it not for his constnt ignorant posts, we wouldn't have so many who reply and post good information and links in reply to his false and harmful words.
You know MIMI, you and most of your GW denying friends are unaware that global warming, the greenhouse effect and climate chane are closely related but separate issues.
No reasonable person who has any common sense can or would deny that humanity burning fossil fuels during the past 200 years, especially coal, is the reason our atmosphere suffers with the resultiong greenhouse effect, the also resulting global warming and climate change around the entire globe.
Where we live in the American southwest, last year was the coolset on record and far above average rainfall. At the same time the Arctic experienced far above average temps and a result of thawing of the perma frost and sea ice. Yet you MIMI and some others deny that is a fact. One does not have to be a scinetist, geologist ort have a doctorate in any field of science to see is is indeed a fact.
One more time! Here is a link and a most important but brief article, which was published about five years ago here at Common Dreams and what the highly qualified author warned us of at that time is now upon us. His only error is he was incorrect about how long of a time we had before it happened. ____ It's happening and because of deniers, nothing is being done to prevent a world wide disaster as serious as a massive asteroid strike. Have a nice day MIMI, but I'd sure hate to be aligned with you and recognized as a traitor to all of mankind.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
~Kem Patrick~
There you go again, Kem. Calling dear MiMi names. I wonder, does CCS stand for Carbon Capture and Sequestration? BTW, did you see the little clip on Climate Progress from a TV show about CO2 and GW from 1958? A Professor Baxter gave the talk, and it contained a crude cartoon of people looking down on Miami from glass-bottomed boats.
http://ecopolitology.org/2008/08/04/global-warming-video-from-1958/
how prophetic..............see, they've known about all this for eons but haven't done a thing.
and javier still hasn't shown me his study attributing g.w. to anything else.......but then i didn't think he would.
I really must question the relating of a metaphor with name calling. It is my opinion, and I trust a fair number of others here as well, a metaphor that fits rather nicely. While I agree that Kem would be better served to focus more on issues and less on personality, he is more correct than not.
The indisputable downside with the position of deniers is that they err not on the side of caution or wisdom of any sort, but instead for reckless and impetuous disregard for what could very likely become the most significant challenge to the wellness (if not simple survival) of the human species. They do this for the sake of maintaining a status quo based on pursuit of material wealth and the consumption of resources, which even without the threat of GW simply cannot be sustained much longer in the overall course of humanity. They are quite simply way too willing to risk too much for too little.
And when you add population overshoot to the mix, it should be (but isn't) obvious to even the staunchest of deniers that humanity needs to seek an accord with nature, to honor the most fundamental truism of all - we do not nor can not exist outside the balance of nature which has created and does sustain us. But, what should they care, for they themselves will be too long dead to hear the cries and feel the pains of those whom will follow and must endure the result of deniers' ignorance and selfishness.
Thanks!
i remember watching "Dr. Research" films when i was in school, "Our Mr. Sun" about the way the sun works and supports life on Earth, and "Hemo the Magnificent" about the way human blood is developed from sea water! Teaching evolution in the schools!
i did not remember seeing anything about global warming, and the link does not say which film it is from.
I do not recall calling MIMI any names.
I do recall saying his presence reminds me of a gopher in the garden, a distructful animal who severs no useful purpose thaty I am aware of. Others may see him in any light they desire.
There is nothing of more importance for all of humanity than attempting to stop man caused global warming and any who deny the obvious and then write comments that cause it to be controversial are traitors to all of mankind. That's not name calling, that's reality.
When Miami is below sea level, no human will see it. We'll all be dead from the methane releases. There may be some rodents and or bacteria eating left over human flesh and bones, which will includde the dead children.
It's that serious and few care, ____ I do.
Sorry, I Kare,
I Beg
to differ. It actually IS name-calling, pretty much by definition. May I suggest criticizing the act and not the person. There's a difference between calling other readers' attention to serial trolls (clear only over time) or recidivist climate deniers (") and calling someone a traitor. That attributes motives to someone I suspect you have never met.
4 categories of people who disagree with us: liars, fools, crazy people, and people who know something we don't. It's not always easy to tell the difference.
As a gardener, I liked your gopher metaphor, but I'd like to point out that all creatures have functions in Nature (different from purpose, which is another argument entirely. I'm not admitting anyone or anything has a purpose.) And all people have functions in the collective psychology. Some people function to hold and express the traits and feelings we deny in ourselves--for progressives, greed, anger, hatred, desire for protection... just for example. When we believe someone else has our cast-off traits that's projection. When we actually do things that make them behave the way we think they will (and those actions may seem unrelated to the beliefs or behaviors). That's projective identification, or "dreaming up" (Arnold Mindell's term. Think militaristic neocons and Osama bin Laden dreaming each other up...
And don't forget we perform the same function for them. Like it or not (and most of the time I hate it) we have to find a way to heal the rift, which is not to say compromise or meet in the middle or surrender or anything like those. But to say we are fine and right and they are wrong and stupid is to not see how they are right and we are stupid. Know thyself.
Previous post FYI:
You know, sometimes it's instructive to make a few observations and see where they take us. The following may seem too simple, or over the top, but consider:
The IPCC ice core data charts, and the same as seen in Gore's Book printed, so it can be studied, show us that there have been about 6 ice age cycles in the last 650ky. We are on the up-swing of a temp/CO2 spike now, with GHGs now well out of historical norms. This begs the questions-What weather phenomenon has defeated and reversed the previous spikes, yet not immediately lowered the mean planetary temp? -which is the trigger? temp or CO2? Obviously, temp. -It is also obvious that the reversals occurred before the ice caps melted appreciably, otherwise there would be no data to harvest...Is, then, the reversal of our spike immanent, or even, overdue? -When does the ice of an ice age build up? All at once or gradually, as the temp/CO2 decreases? How is the atmosphere supplied with the moisture and energy necessary to transfer so much water to the poles as snow and ice? -What role does methane play as it is released from tundra and the oceans? -Was there massive methane release during the previous cycles? Or did the reversals act to put the methane back to sleep, so to speak, before it could compound the greenhouse effect? There were humans present during the previous cycles, -How and where did they survive the reversals?
-What can the paleo-geologic record found in the magnetic striping of the mid-Atlantic ridge tell us about tectonic plate movement and possible, or sudden, volcanic warming of the oceans? -Is it possible that the mass of melt water transferred to the equatorial bulge would be sufficient to change the angular momentum of the earth enough to tweak the plates into movement? -Does USGS data show increased activity along plate boundaries that might be a "forcing of the forcings" related to shifting watermass or rising landmass?
The answers to these questions are not hard to compute. The answers dictate the type and intensity of response that is called for. The answers have probably been known for some time, by some people who have the connections and means to respond. The answers demand a change to the status quo, a change from "growth and consumption" to sustainability and survival. Look at the tops of the spikes and decide if we have any more time to dick around with any energy sources that add heat or GHGs to the ecosphere. Coal and oil are out. Nukes and geo-thermal are out. NG, too, even though it's cleaner. The grid has to change. Wealth has to be used in different ways. It's a different game, and we're all in the same boat.
We can have just as much fun surviving with wind and sun, as with burning and consuming---let's do it!
New:
Probably, one of the main characteristics of a spike is that everything is relatively normal, until it isn't. We are getting lots of clues now.
The emerging scenario seems to me to be: rising temp melts land-borne ice along with seaice. Fresh water disrupts the thermo-haliene circulation of the gulf stream and if we're lucky, that's as far as it goes--an ice age cycle of normal proportions is initiated and civilization is disturbed, but maybe not destoyed.
If ice melts at such a rate as to enhanse the above, another scenario might unfold: Land-borne ice melt flows to the equatorial bulge (the planet is not a perfect sphere-it bulges at the equator because of centrifugal force) thus changing the mass distribution and angular momentum of the earth and putting enough pressure on the tectonic plates to start a geotectonic event that would activate the ring of fire and the mid-atlantic ridge. The resulting undersea volcanism, (not to mention the earthquakes, and worst case the popping of the Yellowstone magma dome,) would flash heat the oceans. That seems to me to be the hidden key to how and when an ice age starts, and how it gets the moisture and enough energy to move that much water back to the polar latitudes, forming the glaciers, part of which slide on down around Cincinnati, melt and recede over the next 110,000 years.
Apparently the methane has been sequestered for a very long time--dinasaur time. It would be very bad for us to loose enough heat into the mix to stir up the methane. The previous most recent six ice age cycles evidently have occurred soon enough in the cycle to keep the methane down under frozen tundra and cooled ocean water.
Well, so much for cool-headed chart analysis and amateur deductions and dot-connecting. Now I feel I must strip naked and run around the streets yelling this in the faces of anyone who will listen...
ta-ta. (???Doesn't anyone from the Noble committee ever visit this site???)
Excellent post, i read it the first time but didn't really let it sink in.
i've wondered about both points you raise: the mechanisms by which previous melts were reversed before runaway overheating was triggered by positive feedback; and the degree to which global shifts in the distribution of H20 will affect plate tectonics.
i appreciate that you are speculating, but these are key aspects of the unfolding crisis that scientists and policy makers should address.
snydly
Thanks for your response. An additional factor related to tectonics gleaned from USGS info is that land masses such as G-land, releived of the weight of the ice, tend to rise, actually float higher on the magma. And National Geog had an article, I believe, on the mechanics of the melting that is shaping up on G-land---flows of melt water form surface streams which drop through the thousands of feet of ice to the land surface, creating a layer of slush under incredible pressure. The next dot in that progression is: earth tremor, separation and departure of a largish section of ice cap which, worse case, might produce a tsunami out into the Atlantic. Or worst case, a chain reaction of tsunamis as some of the crumbling islands in the east Atlantic loose a mountain or two (PBS).
A serious multi-disciplinary approach, including even rogue generalists like ourselves, seems called for. Think Al would go for that?
You forget that the weight of those miles of ice has depressed the interior of Greenland down significantly.
Greenland's "land" formation is now a huge bowl-shaped depression. Filling this depression with meltwater will actually slow down sea level rise that would occur if the meltwater flowed to the sea (at least until Greenland starts rebounding after being relieved of the weight of all that ice.)
Astronomers who spend their lives studying this all agree that the sun will expand to a red giant by about 5 billion years from now (give or take a few million years).
However, the sun will start to expand and grow more luminous within a billion years, causing most of the Earth's water to boil away.
5.5 billion years from now the sun will have become a red giant, and a few million years after that it will have expanded even more into a asymptotic red giant - but with only about 66% of its current mass the planets will have moved further out (except Mercury and Venus which will have been enveloped by the expanding sun).
All of you are arguing "is global warming man made or not". In about 1 billion years from now it won't make a damn bit of difference, we all will be fried.
You should be arguing about the best way to get off this rock if mankind is to continue to live.
Let's hope real hard that mankind never gets off this rock.
Hi there ~WOLF123~ thanks for the lesson on what is going to happen to us in a billion years in the future. Interesting. However, you chide us for arguing about what is going to happen to us in the next few years because of "man caused global warming". Therefore, since I have nothing better to do at 4am our time, I'll take the time to respnd to your argument.
You are putting the cart before the hors ~Wolfie 123~. For example, let us suppose you have been suffering with severe headaches and your doctor sends you for an MRI. It is discovered that you have a large brain tumor and delicate brain surgery is necessary. You are scheduled for that surgery on December 20, 08.
This afternoon you discover that your stool is full of blood and it is obvious that you are going to bleed to death very soon unless something is done to stop the internal bleeding. In that event, what are you going to be discussing, your scheduled brain surgery, or the fact that you are abouit to die from loss of blood?
You see ~WOLF123~, we should be concerned and arguing if necessary about the present and also be thinking about the future. Now as to leaving this "rock"" as you term it, a unique "water world" I term it, as there are no others known to exist. For humanity to trael to another galaxy to search for another water world as you suggesst, it would take 25,000 years to just reach the outer edge of the Milky Way travelling at the speed of light.
Perhaps at some time in the next 5,000 years, humanity will figure out how to travel through space at speeds which exceed the speed of light, but in the meantime, we have to figre out how to save mankind from itself so that we are still here in the next 40 to 50 years. At the present time, that may be impossible WOLFIE~, because when the Arctic's methane releases, we are gonna be in very serious trouble and it won't be a billion yewars from now, it will be soon.
BTW Wolf123, have you ever had an MRI of the head? You might consider having one, you display the symtoms of brain malfunction, which is not your fault, shit happens.
'for humanity to travel to another galaxy to search for another water world would take 25,000 years at the speed of light'...........
yeah, and that's just humanity.........how do we get the bloody oil up there too???
There you go again. MiMs s a rodent and Wolfie is a retard.
Just kidding. This is serious stuff and humanity is still rearranging the deck chairs as our ship is trembling and starting to list.
I really love Congress woman Bachman's position that we don't have to save the earth, someone alredy did that 2000 years ago. Of course, nothing wrong with meddling in Eastern europe, invading Iraq... to save the world.
I have to totally agree with you ~BBR~, both of your posts. I do feel a bit sorry for insulting the rodents. Actually MIMI and the WOLF are rowing their same GW denying boat. If one lives in an outhouse, they'll smell like shit.
Hi ~COCO~ by that time the oil barons will likely have figured how to have condensed oil at five billion a barrel. If space ship's power plants don't operate on high test gas, we won't ever get to the edge o;f the Milky Way.
~Kem Patrick~
thank goodness for that............we certainly don't need to inflict our 'stupidness' on the rest of the universe.
There you "progressives" go again, calling people names and making fun of those who don't TOTALLY agree with you. As we all know "progressives are 110% correct all the time.
According to a UN study China and India will put more CO2 and other pollutants in the atmosphere over the next 3 years then the entire industrialized world did in the past 125 years- AND JUST WHAT ARE YOU "PROGRESSIVES" DOING TO STOP THEM? N O T H I N G !!!
HANJING, China — One of China's lesser-known exports is a dangerous brew of soot, toxic chemicals and climate-changing gases from the smokestacks of coal-burning power plants.
China is now building one power station every week, the top climate change official at the UK Foreign Office, John Ashton, has said. His statement came as a new report suggested that China may have already become the world's biggest polluter - much earlier than expected.
The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency said China's CO2 emissions had risen by 9% last year, compared with 1.4% in the US.
Already, China uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined. And it has increased coal consumption 14 percent in each of the past two years in the broadest industrialization ever. Every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in China that is big enough to serve all the households in Dallas or San Diego. To make matters worse, India is right behind China in stepping up its construction of coal-fired power plants — and has a population expected to outstrip China's by 2030.
I just love how when I post something that says we will all fry in less than a billion years I am automatically called a global warming denier!
You "progressives" prattle on and on about children's book authors and graphs and various tables that appear to show how smart you are, yet to find an answer on how to stop the worlds 2 largest polluters you are silent.
Kyoto Protocol is a joke on the people of the world, no country will met its levels as long as China and India (who are mostly exempt) keep up their horrendous pollution.
Carbon trading and selling is nothing more than a means for the RICH to get richer and the POOR to get poorer. Al Gore is getting fantastically rich with his carbon offsets, you give Al's company a huge bunch of money and they plant a tree. To critics on both the free-market right, and the environmentalist left, carbon offsets are no more than a marketing gimmick. Some describe the fanciful device as akin to medieval indulgences that were sold in a cleric-run market to regulate the remission of sin.
Instead of spouting and prattling about your graphs and charts, come up with a solid plan to stop China and India's pollution, once they are stopped the rest of the world will be easy.
On the contrary, Wolf,
We are doing everything we can for a problem which though I suspect you overstate, is nonetheless real enough to send us over tipping points which will destroy civilization (not the world, which will be fine without us).
Since the governments of, and many people in, rapidly developing areas are very much like the rest of us—in part, narrow and self-deceiving—they insist most of the problem was caused by us and they’re not sacrificing their modest material wealth on the altar of our extravagance. And though it’s distressing, they have a point. Maybe what we should do is:
1. Stop fighting wars. Stop wasting money, time and energy on military solutions to social and psychological problems, and on other “solutions” in medicine, agriculture, and other fields which are wars on ourselves and the rest of Nature.
2. Put the money, time and energy into converting to ecological ways of life—peaceful, less materialistic, physically and psychologically healthier ways, in general, and specifically, rapidly converting to a conserving, alternative-energy powered society—conservation, solar, wind and a few other small ones. It will not only reduce the effects of ongoing climate catastrophe but will help with a number of other real problems—body burdens we and our children carry of poisons… etc. This will also serve as notice to the developing areas that we are serious about the problem and don’t expect them to shoulder an inordinate proportion of the solutions.
3. Switch to real foreign aid, as opposed to what we have now, which is bribes, top-heavy, socially and ecologically destructive money-makers for the elite, and government subsidized giveaways to OUR corporations by way of credits. Then use it to help, with however much it takes in money and technical aid, to switch those economies to solar and wind as well.
~WOLFIE 123~ You are really confused. I, we "progressives" don't have a problem with you explaining what is going to happen a billion years from now, not at all.
What is disturbing is you fail to understand that the current global warmiong is causing the Arctic to thaw and the release of the stored methane gas there is about to escape into our atmosphere and that will set off global warming to an extent that it will kill all of us, even the "un-progressives" like yourself. That disaster is not a billion years into the future WOLFIE, it may happen in five years or less.
Now I see where you are blaming Chinna and India for the problem, and I agree it is a world wide problem and not restricted to "Progressives", it is a problem for everyone, even the brain damaged idiots. Now long before China began to build factories which produce American brand name goods for Wal-Mart, Sears, Home Depot, etc, we Americans had already caused a serious amount of Co2 to be emmitted into the atmosphere. It is not just China's nor India's fault, it is a world wide issue and our most serious problem. Our means all of humanity. ___ Do you understand?
It would be nice if our President, Congress and he CEO's of major companies would initiate a massive clean-up program and lead the way for the rest of the world. But that is not very likely. You see WOLF, our leaders seem to believe the nonsense written by people such as yourself, as you may recall writing that Global warmilng is a croc of bull here on several occasions.
BTW WOLFIE, what catagory do you fit yourself into if you are not a "Progressive; are you a "de-gressive, a neo-con, a staunch right winger republican, a democrat right winger, a global warming denier, a redneck shit-kicker? What are you bud? Be interesting to hear it from you, so we know where you are comiing from.
Thanks for the laughs however. ___ ~Kem Patrick~
Let me suggest to all who understand the true threat of Global Warming
that giving ANY attention to GW-deniers is like debating whether the sun
still circles around the earth .. it's nonsense --
ignore it --!!!
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Yes, it would be great to stipulate to all sensical things and get on with much more lively, interesting, fun and useful debates about solutions. Unfortunately, some people reading these articles and comments don't know the trolls and deniers are lying or mistaken, and reasonable-sounding quotes and links to websites containing reasonable-sounding arguments may fool them, however false the statements may be and however apparent the wrongness may be to those of us familiar with scientific method, ecology, psychology, and climate science. Also, without magical powers of mind-reading we don't know which posts are lies and which are well-intentioned mistakes. If you don't want to debate and counter, point by point, these posts, don't. I hereby relieve you of doing this onerous job. Others will take care of it, and when you recognize the anti-science posters (MimiCcs, Wolf123, et al) you can skip over them and the indented replies to them. On with the solutions mission, conscience. We gotcher back.
Kem old boy, you can't see the forest for all the trees in the way.
Now you are hot to stop global warming (excuse the pun) you don't go after Costa Rica YOU go after the ones pumping the most CO2 into the atmosphere now and for the foreseeable future, CHINA and INDIA. Go after the US, or big oil and you are putting a band aid on a hemorrhaging artery.
I also never said "Global warmilng is a croc of bull", I just had my doubts that MAN was the sole and only cause (I still do).
"what catagory do you fit yourself into if you are not a "Progressive"
I am a realist, and as such I look at everything not just the narrow "progressive" field of view. Stop China and India and you have won 2/3ds of the battle and the last 1/3rd will be easy. Don't stop China and India and all your name calling, pontificating, charts and graphs will get you one thing - a global warming disaster.
You have to put forth a viable alternative to coal and oil that will generate as much energy as easily and cheaply as they do.
Solar sounds good but the best solar panels can convert only 22% of the suns energy to electricity (that sucks) and are quite expensive for the average home owner (especially in out current economic condition). BUT here we are talking about the US not China or India. So what if the US goes totally green next month, the problem is China's CO2 emissions had risen by 9% last year, will increase to 14% next year and 25% the following year, compared with 1.4% in the US and is decreasing yearly. You need to need to give China and India a viable option to coal. One good thing on your side is China and India are just constructing their new modern electrical grid, over lapping the old, as opposed to the US where our electrical grid is on the verge of collapse.
As I said before, carbon offsets are no more than a marketing gimmick. Some describe the fanciful device as akin to medieval indulgences that were sold in a cleric-run market to regulate the remission of sin. You don't want to regulate the remission of sin (CO2) you want to contain it's growth and then regulate it's output.
as a 'realist' it's taking you a very long time to 'realise' you are not going to change kem's mind...................and therefore it would appear your continual attacks on him are some form of bizarre vendetta/warped form of pleasure.
as for suggesting 'we' 'progressives' come up with a solid plan to stop china and india's pollution; i believe many alternatives have been suggested. putting them into practise will be another story.............
but i have a suggestion for you...............
Hi COCO, are you ready for the coming methane burps? Me neither, there will be no way to prepare for that disaster. We may still have the time to prevent it if we would stop burning coal and replace the power plants with solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal and do that world wide.
BTW, ~WOLFIE~ is apparantly unaware that here in the U S of A, we are costructing coal fired power plants that will produce 19GW of electricity and several more are planned for construction within a year or two.
That was a swell suggestion for the "degrressive".