• Home
  • Blogs
  • Couric & Co.
Couric & Co.
April 14, 2009 3:38 PM

Katie Couric's Notebook: Polar Melting

Posted by Katie Couric
(Steve Romaine)
The latest evidence comes from opposite ends of our planet, but the story it tells is the same.

At the North Pole, new satellite photos show Arctic ice is melting so fast, many scientists now predict it will be gone within 30 years. Some researchers think it could disappear in just six.

At the South Pole, an ice shelf the size of Connecticut is in danger of melting because the ice bridge that held it in place has shattered. It's one of ten ice shelves that have shrunk or collapsed in the past 50 years. Some were 10,000 years old.

Polar ice works as the earth's air conditioner. Without it, there could be a snowball effect with temperatures rising even faster.

Governments all around the world have to take the lead in solving this crisis, but each of us has to do our part to reduce greenhouse gasses. If we don't all take bold action -- and take it soon -- we will all find ourselves on very thin ice. If we're lucky.

That's a page from my notebook.


Tags:
couric ,
global ,
warming ,
arctic ,
notebook
Topics:
Katie Couric's Notebook
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx

More from Couric & Co. and Evening News on CBSNews.com

Add a Comment
by pedrosanchezforthewin October 4, 2009 11:57 AM EDT
? Very Thin Ice! Very Thin Ice! ?
Reply to this comment
by Squirrel_Dawg May 15, 2009 8:15 AM EDT
Excellent reporting...........
I'm sure not an expert like the others that have left a comment, my late mother wouldn't have let me leave a negative comment....
Up bringing is what she called it.........
Reply to this comment
by zzsignup April 25, 2009 6:25 PM EDT
Pound_Sand, you're the one who's pathetically ignorant. You have no clue as to how the scientific process works, yet comment like you're an expert. A scientific theory is not a guess, it's an proposed explanation for observed phenomenon, backed up by studies to back up the observation. All of the shortcomings you mentioned have in fact been considered (not modeling something as basic as rainfall?) in modeling global climate change. Being ignorant about the research and data does not make it flawed.
Reply to this comment
by BossMcGravity April 25, 2009 12:34 PM EDT
Oh snap, how fast?
Reply to this comment
by Pound_Sand April 15, 2009 9:13 PM EDT
claydowner conveniently left out a clean and proven reliable alternative to fossil fuels: nuclear power.

--"We have to try as hard as we can to change from fossil fuel consumption because linkage between carbon fossil fuels and CO2 caused climate change is very clear."

But reality forced you to drop the term "global warming" in favor of "climate change." Of course the climate is changing; it's called N-A-T-U-R-E.

--"The deniers have to prove the theory wrong."

Since when do opponents of a theory have to prove it wrong? It is incumbent upon the proponents of the theory to support it with factual, scientific data that can be replicated. If they can't, then it remains just a guess. As such, we should not make policy based on things that are truly out of our control.

--"Why are all the glaciers everywhere disappearing?"

It's Nature's way of giving moonbats something to do with their free time (wringing their hands and protesting) instead of taking endless bong hits and gambling away their rent money.
Reply to this comment
by claydowner April 15, 2009 1:03 AM EDT
The science from NREL has greatly improved the ability to look at climate change. Most scientists around the world see a connection between the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere from fossil fuels. We need to develop renewables (solar, wind, and geothermal) like Germany has done. They could get 30% of their electricity from solar and wind farms by 2020. They also are building mostly turbodiesel cars that can get more than 50 MPG or more burning ultra clean diesel fuel. The Europeans also have lots of highly efficient mass transit and bullet trains.

We have to try as hard as we can to change from fossil fuel consumption because linkage between carbon fossil fuels and CO2 caused climate change is very clear. The deniers have to prove the theory wrong. Why are all the glaciers everywhere disappearing? Glaciologists who have dug ice corps in Antarctica, back to many thousands of years ago, show that there has been dramatic CO2 increases back to 150 years ago. This corresponds to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the combustion of coal for the steam age. But the deniers will not believe that climate is changing until all the ice melts on the poles.
Reply to this comment
by Pound_Sand April 14, 2009 11:59 PM EDT
This is Darwinism in action, so what's the problem?

If "Mother Nature" decides it's time for the polar bears to go, shouldn't we respect her "deity". How can we mere mortals thwart the omnipotence of "The Goddess" Gaia? (Unless she's just another fraudulent incarnation of Satan).

Since scientists cannot determine what caused previous ice ages to start, and then later stop, why do they have the gall to blame mankind now?

Most all computer models used by the doomsayers do not factor in the role of rainfall (which has an obvious balancing effect across the entire planet). Besides, warmer temperatures would create longer growing seasons and more crop production worldwide.

It's pantheistic snake oil being foisted on the pathetically ignorant.
Reply to this comment

About Couric & Co.

Go for a look behind the scenes at The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric for stuff we like and for surprises. It's also a place for you to post comments and join our conversation about the news.

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn