EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
New Study Blames Human Beings for Half of Arctic Ice Melt
ANCHORAGE — About half the recent record loss of Arctic sea ice can be blamed on global warming caused by human activity, according to a new study by scientists from the nation's leading climate research center.
Record Arctic Sea Ice Loss in 2007
(NASA) The peer-reviewed study, funded by the National Science Foundation is the first to attribute a specific proportion of the ice melt to greenhouse gases and particulates from pollution.
The study used supercomputers and one of the world's most sophisticated climate models to reach its conclusions, said lead author Jennifer Kay, a staff scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. The paper was published last week in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Kay said her study was an attempt to learn how much Arctic Ocean melting can be attributed to "natural variability" - complex changes wrought by nonhuman forces - and how much has been caused by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and by atmospheric particulates.
In doing so, she was also able to look ahead to future annual and decade-long fluctuations. She and the other authors said conditions will become more volatile from year to year. That means there will be years and perhaps decades when the ice pack expands. But the trend is in the other direction.
"There's no doubt about it - sea ice is going away," she said. "What we found was that about half of that trend is related to the increasing greenhouse gases." The other half of the sea-ice loss, as observed over the late 20th century, was "just related to variability in the system."
The study comes at an important time as public policy and climate change intersect in Alaska and elsewhere in the North. The reduction of the ice pack is already opening Arctic waters to transportation, development and military activities. The NCAR study says that the melting of the ice pack is no short-term fluke but an actual change in climate.
The study could also come into play in the current legal and political fight over the federal government's listing of polar bears as a threatened species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed polar bears on the assumption the loss of sea ice - an essential part of their habitat - would soon have dramatic effects on their survival.
The state and others sued, claiming in part that the earlier modeling that predicted sea-ice loss was flawed and that the listing would needlessly hinder development.
On the other side, environmentalists wanted more restrictions than the federal government proposed, including reductions in Lower 48 greenhouse gas emissions to forestall the death of the ice pack.
In the study, the authors said earlier research determined that greenhouse gases were responsible for some loss of sea ice, but no one had been able to firmly establish how big a part they played.
Kay said the climate model she chose, Community Climate System Model version 4, had been developed by teams of scientists over several decades. She ran 4,000 years' worth of data through the model, a period when volcanoes, solar variations and other factors were known or believed to have forced climate changes.
The scientists placed extra focus on the years since 1979, when satellite images became available to determine the extent of sea-ice depletion.
The model accurately "predicted" what actually occurred historically, validating the method, she said.
But more to the point, by replaying the climate forces of the 20th century over and over through the model, the scientists were able to show that variability can account for only half the loss of ice, she said.
That means that if humans were still only hunters and gatherers, sea ice might have retreated anyway over the past 30 years.
But what made the loss of ice a record? Kay said it was centuries of carbon emissions and other human-caused changes to the atmosphere. Those pollutants prevent solar heat from radiating back into space, creating the "greenhouse effect."
Had variability instead trended in the opposite direction over the past 30 years - toward growing the ice pack - the model showed that the addition of greenhouse gasses would have prevented the ice pack from thickening. The variability would have masked the greenhouse effect for a period of time - the ice wouldn't have shrunk, but it also wouldn't have grown, she said.
As for the future, with the climate warming and the Arctic ice thinning still further, you can throw away the term "natural variability," she said. Where heavy sea ice once tended to dampen climate variability, that natural climate is gone. With the ice pack reduced, she said, year-to-year and decade-to-decade volatility increases.
"Our work really demonstrates that the variability in the climate model simulations is not entirely natural by the end of the 20th century," she said. "That's why we call it in the paper, 'internal variability.' We're in a warmer state now, so we have different variability than we did before when it was just natural variability."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
38 Comments so far
Show All>>>> but no one had been able to firmly establish how big a part they played.
Once again, what has been "firmly established" is a (rather loose) lower bound on anthropogenic contributions.
A lot of ever changing "variabilities" in this study.
Yes gardenernorcal,,, lots.
I'm not a scientists and am not qualified to argue scientist's peer reviewed conclusions, but we are all quaified to ask pertenant questions and quote other highly qualified scientists..
My question is: Since the US Geologlical Survey Ass has long ago determined that (human activity) emits more Co2 into the atmosphere than (17,000) active volcanoes the size of the one in Hawaii, 17,000 active volcanoes erupting and spewing out Co2 24/7 for more than a hundred years,,,,, how is it that human activity is (only) responsible for causing half of the Arctic ice to melt?
There hasn't been anywhere near that much volcanic activity for the past several billion years... Most of the naturtal Co2 emitted by nature is absorbed by plant life, we humans have just added more Co2 than plant life can absorb and sequester.
The Arctic ice is rapidly melting due to (global warming), global warming is caused by EXCESS Co2, methane and other potent greenhouse gases in the greenhouse gas mix in our upper atmosphere and human activity IS the cause of that for the planet's current global warming episode.
There is an old adage that with computers: ("garbage in __ garbage out".... I suppose that would also apply to super computerts?
I also find it strange that nary a peep from the scientists about the factual proven Arctic Methane threat as the ice and permafrost continue to disappear.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/04/science-nsf-tundra-permafrost-methane-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-venting/
"Methane release from the not-so-permafrost is the most dangerous amplifying feedback in the entire carbon cycle…. Research published in then March 5, 2010 Journal Science finds a key lid on the large sub-sea permafrost carbon reservoir near Eastern Siberia is clearly perforated, and sedimentary CH4 [methane] is escaping to the atmosphere."... Methane gas escaping by billions of tons a month, trillions of tons await more thaw of the Arctic's permafrost.
http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/2010/01/08/siberian-shelf-methane-increased-in-2009/
I am not aware of any pending issue which is anywhere near as dangerous for life on Earth than this... It is as dangerous and deadly as an incoming asteroid the size of Rhode Island traveling at 40,000 miles per hour and it is being ignored... Government leaders and scientists would not ever ignore an incoming asteroid of any large size, so I'm confused as to why they ignore the Arctic's methane releasing..
"I am not aware of any pending issue which is anywhere near as dangerous for life on Earth than this... It is as dangerous and deadly as an incoming asteroid the size of Rhode Island traveling at 40,000 miles per hour and it is being ignored... Government leaders and scientists would not ever ignore an incoming asteroid of any large size, so I'm confused as to why they ignore the Arctic's methane releasing.. "
Meanwhile we all just go on happily killing and destroying -- people, countries, ecologies... good way to make a buck, though...
hello richard,
i hope you don't feel the lack of discussion signals lack of interest. the majority of us common dreamers have been beating the drum for sane environmental policies for most of our lives. now we attempt to find ways to rein in our political systems whose members appear more bent on preserving and protecting the governments which employ them than in preserving a healthy and healthful biosphere. the health and well-being of our planet including all life within should never become a political football. we have learned from experience that those who learn all they need to know about physical law from the man or woman behind the pulpit, view our words and warnings as humanistic attempts to deny the invisible super-natural.
i caught a few comments from kay which differentiate between human and natural causes. yes, our species has run amok indulging both our egos and bodies at the expense of the balanced and always re-balancing life-support system which allowed our species to evolve into greater awareness of ourselves in and of the cosmos. too many human presume we stand outside and apart from nature looking in. some grasp to the hope that a supernatural being shall swoop in to save our ungrateful asses, while others expect a deus ex machina technology to intervene that we may continue the excessive "standard of living" too many assume our birthright.
The study apparently has used a 2-dimensional measurement of the surface area of Arctic ice, not a 3-dimensional measurement of total ice volume. The 14 foot thick ice of decades past has been replaced by 1 foot thick pancake ice, a bunch of little round pancakes floating in the sea, made round by bumping into each other. Almost all of the ice is gone right now, and one hot rainy Arctic summer not far in the future it will become 99% gone.
In terms of volume of ice lost, today we're ahead of 2007's record-setting ice loss. 90% of the Arctic Ocean has either pancake ice or is all water.
Want a look? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
~~katrinelachatte~~,,, I suspect that you are absolutly correct.
And yet in this year of "extreme" weather there is conscpicious little causal connection noted in the msm. Despite the fact that these "extremes" are just the consequences forecast by global warming. And despite the cause we are supposed to willingly dismantle the only instrument of our common cause, government in the service of its own people.
The only way I can describe this place is crashing and burning. Will there ever be an awakening, here in the belly of the beast?
The oil companies must be very happy with this "New Study Blames Human Beings for Half of Arctic Ice Melt".
THIS CONCLUSION IS FALSE!
For a century the exploitation of natural resources, especially fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal, etc.) has been driven by for-profit privately owned corportions, operating with inadequate regulation. This exploitation of these resources for private profit profit has meant the rape of the planet that is destroying the planet.
THE ONLY POSSIBLE MEASURE TO LIMIT GLOBAL WARMING, TO END THE DESTRUCTION OF AIR, LAND AND OCEANS FOR PROFIT, TO TRANSITION ENERGY PRODUCTION TO SUSTAINABLE NON-TOXIC TECHNOLOGIES,
IS TO NATIONALIZE (SOCIALISE) THE ENTIRE TOXIC ENERGY INDUSTRY.
THAT IS, THE OIL, COAL, GAS, AND NUCLEAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES MUST BE PLACED UNDER SOCIAL OWNERSHIP AND DEMOCRATIC MANAGEMENT IN ORDER TO SHUT DOWN THESE INDUSTRIES THAT ARE DESTROYING THE PLANET FOR PROFIT.
THE CAPITALIST INVESTORS AND THEIR PRIVATE PROFIT DRIVEN CORPORATIONS WILL NEVER VOLUNTARILY REDUCE THEIR PROFITS
TO FUND THE END OF ECOLOGICAL DESTRUCTION. THIS HAS TO BE IMPOSED BY SOCIETY AND HUMANITY FOR OUR VERY SURVIVAL.
PLEASE SEE THIS BOOK FROM MONTHLY REVIEW PRESS
details here: http://monthlyreview.org/press/books/pb2181/
The Ecological Rift
Capitalism’s War on the Earth
John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark and Richard York
In The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth, environmental sociologists John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark, and Richard York offer a radical assessment of both the problem and the solution. They argue that the source of our ecological crisis lies in the paradox of wealth in capitalist society, which expands individual riches at the expense of public wealth, including the wealth of nature. In the process, a huge ecological rift is driven between human beings and nature, undermining the conditions of sustainable existence: a rift in the metabolic relation between humanity and nature that is irreparable within capitalist society, since integral to its very laws of motion.
Critically examining the sanguine arguments of mainstream economists and technologists, Foster, Clark, and York insist instead that fundamental changes in social relations must occur if the ecological (and social) problems presently facing us are to be transcended. Their analysis relies on the development of a deep dialectical naturalism concerned with issues of ecology and evolution and their interaction with the economy. Importantly, they offer reasons for revolutionary hope in moving beyond the regime of capital and toward a society of sustainable human development.
This book is desperately needed, because it ends any illusion that we can solve our pressing environmental crises within the same system that created them. With tweaking the system—using incremental market-based strategies—off the table, we can put our efforts into genuine, lasting solutions.
—Annie Leonard, author and host, Story of Stuff
Agree -- unfortunately oil is also a national security issue --
no oil/no war --
No private interests should have control over our natural resources --
and given the increasing dangers from Global Warming we should
be shutting down our nuclear reactors -- rather a "whimper than than
a bang" -- !!
By socializing the oil industry, the main motivation for waging war in the Middle East is essentially eliminated! War is profit to the military-industrial complex. War is profit from control of oil to the oil companies. By transitioning away from oil, the need for oil is greatly diminished. The U.S. military is the largest user of oil and the greatest single polluter! Ending war in Middle East would end the use of depleted uranium in munitions, ending the radiation pollution, which is having serious effects on children in Iraq.
The national U.S. economy, and globally, for human survival, must be organized and managed to economic needs of the people who work to create the economic wealth of the society. As it is, under capitalism, The economic surplus, instead of maintaining public eduction, public health, maintaining clean air, land, water, etc.
THE ECONOMIC SURPLUS IS BEING DIVERTED TO MAXIMIZE THE WEALTH AND PROFIT OF A FEW INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS.
This massive inequality of wealth is used to destroy all public commonwealth economic institutions and functions.
Read the World Socialist Web Site http://www.wsws.org
Read Monthly Review Magazine
In California, register, vote, run for office in the Peace and Freedom Party.
Great post Jerry Wells!
The "ecological rift" that Foster uses is from the rift created by capitalist social relations between humanity and nature. Marx called this a "metabolic rift". The idea is that human history and natural history co-evolve. That nature is part of human metabolism just a human metabolism is part of nature. This idea developed 150 years ago is today still a cutting edge concept among ecological thinkers. Foster develops this in his book "Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature" and extends his thinking in his book "The Ecological Revolution" (both of which I have read). I just finished reading Chris Williams' book "Ecology and Socialism" which takes some of Foster's thinking but directs it toward a less academic audience and more towards an activist (revolutionary) audience. Highly recommended! I haven't read his latest: "The Ecological Rift", maybe I'll get to it this Fall.
Again, I contend Capitalism does not Create wealth. It merely steals it and shifts it into the pockets of a few.
"Labor is the father of wealth and nature is its mother." Marx quoting William Paley.
Labor, and only labor, creates real wealth. The financial "industry" creates money profits through fraudulent trading of paper, literally nothing but paper (often or even usually "paper" in the form of bits and bytes stored on hard drives) but not real wealth. Those money profits lead only, ultimately, to inflation, which hurts the least wealthy a lot more than the most wealthy. $12/gallon gasoline is a joke to the wealthy. The minimum wage laborer has to work 2 hours a day just to afford gasoline to get to work and from work to home.
most now agree
that the earth's weather patterns are strange and ever stranger and predictions based from recorded statistical evidence at least until "nature stabilizes" herself leave us all only to "expect the unexpected." we can argue over the how this came to be or we can accept the reality of what we see. we need to focus on working with Nature who has no evil intent only reacts to the situation on the ground as should we all. yesterday poster, buck, stated that the trick to a sustainable living planet is to live off the interest, never touching the capital, the natural resources which nurture all interdependent life. i agree! however our failure to choose to monitor our population and other policies have brought us to the point at which we need to help rebuild the rich capital of precious and once renewable resources. let the fools on capitol hill run frantically throwing money around in vain hopes the coins will land on a solution. we have work to do! don't ask how much it pays because to invest in our enviornonment allows Nature to payback many fold. we cannot be anxious. we've been on the wrong path for centuries.
Aldo Leopold is considered the grandfather of restoration. We should follow his lead. A new Civilian Conservation Corps. could be formed for the work at hand. I would enlist in a heartbeat.
Regenerating the forests should be at the top of the list. Trees act as carbon sinks, water and air filters, rainmakers, wind breaks, temperature moderators, and homes for a myriad of flora and fauna.
a side note for my feathered friend,
a couple of weeks ago, a hummingbird found its way into the greenhouse and was struggling with no success to get out. I started talking to it and reached out, but it was frightened and fled down into the corner. After five minutes of moving crap out of the way and explaining the situation, I reached in and it jumped into my hand. I walked outside expecting a quick departure, but it just sat in my hand for a few minutes resting, then launched like a flash. It was the best experience I've had in quite a while.
Great bird-anecdote, Buck! - And that's how it actually works with most animals: talk to them earnestly, i.e. "from the heart", and they DO understand your intentions toward them - if those intentions are benign.
I've had similar experiences with birds - though not quite that nice.
I've many times met moose in the forest, rising up two meters from me, wakened, and I've stopped, stood very still, though relaxed and just talked saying nonsense like: "Hi, I'm sorry to disturb your sleep, hope you're fine, I'm just passing through, don't mind me...", with astonishing encounters of micro-exchanges of signs ensuing - ears swivelling, sniffs of air, eyes blinking with undecided curiosity, before bored turning away and lumbering off.
A fox met can be cheeky and sit down to study you back (youngsters probably).
Likewise, a wasp flown in through the window will usually follow a finger held up to it, then pointed and led towards the window to find its way out (wasps and bumble-bees inside don't really want to be there and are often confused - a human waving things at them only confuse them further, whereas catching their attention with a calmly upheld finger and cooperating on the mutual interest of getting them outside again works better ).
The general rule seems to be:
All living things can react favorably to interaction with us humans, if we assume they too are only trying to live their lives reasonably well.
2b, I bet we could swap stories all day.
I, too, have met a Moose. He came splashing up out of a lake in Maine as I was drinking my morning coffee. We exchanged pleasantries and he turned and walked back into the water.
Most animals are friendly and polite, but Wolves and Coyotes don't ask questions, they just run!
That is what I'd call a spiritual experience. I'm betting that bird will return and sit in your hand again.
I suggest that humans, we are so very clever aren't we, count up all the carbon atoms on the planet. Compare it with the number of CO2 molecules and keep a running tab and go to an alert system, like the terrorist yellow orange and red we have/had, so when more CO2 becomes over abundant by, say 10 molecules of plain carbon we get people to consume more 'carbs' so that they can replace the carbon sinks that humans have destroyed from stripping out the forests. Simple as replacing one sink with another and gosh almighty when you look at all the two ton tonys waddling around you know you can keep a strict inventory of carbon atoms and CO2 molecules. That way we can all feel good about ourselves because we have just taken humans out of the carbon/CO2 problem and then it will only be left to blame the dastardly climate change totally for the ice melting.
When Polar Bears are a memory, they will exist here:
http://www.dnabank-network.org/Links.php
Well, that's better than zoos. I am thrilled to hear that we can now save all forms of life; just one question.
How on earth are we going to get the piece of DNA to grow into a real live Polar Bear when the ice returns?
What makes you think we will be around when the ice returns? Humans may be resilient, but don't count being that resilient.
I saw a place by the roadside. It said, "Self-Storage". Yeah, that'll work!
We'll add a dash of this and a dash of that and...BAM!
"New Study Blames Human Beings for Half of Arctic Ice Melt"
That's so comforting to know. It half takes the pressure off. Nice.
Now I only wonder, which half?
The top half, or the bottom?
The half closest to Russia, or the half closest to USA/Canada?
The half we can do without, or the half we really need?
Does this mean a polar bear drowned from lack of ice is only half dead?
Joking aside, does this mean we humans are only half cooked, or half fried?
When global climate warming kills humans (as it does every day now, about 500 on avg.), should we then say it's only half our fault?
Does this mean the arctic glass is half full, or half empty?
According to 'Mr. Oxycontin' (and other propagan-duh pundits on talk hate radio and tell-lie-vision) there is no climate change... and if there actually was such a phenomena, it would NOT have anything to do with the Doctrine of Growth or other anthropogenic activities. No way they say! Denial reigns supreme for the $ake of 'free market capitalism'.
Butt allass! Many of those associated with the myopic and suicidal views stated above... claim the Earth is only 6000 years old... and probably flat. They also say it is the patriotic duty of all corn syrup consumer/citizens in faster poo-food Amerika to...
1. keep $hopping
2. support the troops in Iraq-nam (and other invasions and occupations)
3. give more money to Israel
4. grant more tax cuts for the rich.
Of interest is the coast of N Russia where the permafrost is thawing. Methane bursts have been recorded in ocean sediment and ice sheet cores over the last iceage cycle at the points of major, rapid climate change. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html
Well stated ~~snydly~~,,, Thank you.
Once the methane gets loose it's curtains for all of us. But in the meantime there's still time to make a buck here in the good old USA -- Ubiquitous Scams Amalgamated.
Basically this article and so many others makes the same valid point-unless we ALL do something collectively productive and incredibly fast, we are all in a world of hurt, because if the planet is screwed, so are we.
You are correct ~~haleatus11~~
I don't know how we can ever get everyone to work together on it... The world's government leaders must get together and try to stop what we have done and continue to do... That is so unlikely when governments are ruled by corporations who's managers, CEOs, don't care about the enviroment and are not only ignorant but are outright stupid when it comes to such an issue.
Look at what happened at the Copenhagen Conference and the later conference in Mexico... Absolutly nothing of any significance was accomlished. They were bad jokes... There were the golden opportunities for government leaders to do something productive and do it fast... They failed miserably..
Add in the incredible effective work a (very few) corrupt professional global warming deniers accompished to promote the false agenda of major world industrial giants like Exxon, GE, BP, Shell, the Koch brothers, Coal barons, etc.
Now a majority of Americans and our 536 DC elected leaders, who are blinded by campaign fund money, either flatly deny or are skeptical that global warming is a fact... I cannot discuss GW with anyone, even close family members. They don't believe it or don't believe it is a serious issue... And no one, no one wants to hear bad news. I understand that.
When global warming becomes as obvious as an incoming asteroid in the next two to four years, then everyone will believe and want fast action... I fear it will be too late. It may already be too late....We'll see.
What if the majority want capitalism, or socialism and we don't? Would we exercise a tyranny of the minority?
It's all a bunch of bullshit. Go to google earth. Take a look at the north pole, arctic ocean, etc. Tell me how much ice you see. IT IS FREE OF ICE. THERE IS NO ICE!! Of course that makes drill baby drill in the arctic that much easier so that we can keep on burning oil, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere.