WASHINGTON, Dec. 13, 2007
New Warning On Arctic Ice Cap Melting
Satellite Images Show Volume Of Sea Ice At Summer's End Was Half That Of 2003
-
Photo
An iceberg floats in a bay off Ammassalik Island, Greenland July 17, 2007. Arctic sea ice melted to its lowest level ever this year, shattering a record set in 2005. (AP/John McConnico)
-
Interactive
Global Warming
The greenhouse effect, a look at the Kyoto Protocol and a history of the Earth's climate.
Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press.
"The Arctic is screaming," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government's snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colo.
Just last year, two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.
This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
So scientists in recent days have been asking themselves these questions: Was the record melt seen all over the Arctic in 2007 a blip amid relentless and steady warming? Or has everything sped up to a new climate cycle that goes beyond the worst case scenarios presented by computer models?
"The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming," said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."
Quote
It is the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, responsible for man-made global warming. For the past several days, government diplomats have been debating in Bali, Indonesia, the outlines of a new climate treaty calling for tougher limits on these gases.We have not passed a point of no return. We can still roll things back in time - but it is going to require a quick turn in direction.
James Hansen, NASA researcher, who says earth has passed a tipping point on global warmingWhat happens in the Arctic has implications for the rest of the world. Faster melting there means eventual sea level rise and more immediate changes in winter weather because of less sea ice.
In the United States, a weakened Arctic blast moving south to collide with moist air from the Gulf of Mexico can mean less rain and snow in some areas, including the drought-stricken Southeast, said Michael MacCracken, a former federal climate scientist who now heads the nonprofit Climate Institute. Some regions, like Colorado, would likely get extra rain or snow.
More than 18 scientists told the AP that they were surprised by the level of ice melt this year.
"I don't pay much attention to one year ... but this year the change is so big, particularly in the Arctic sea ice, that you've got to stop and say, 'What is going on here?' You can't look away from what's happening here," said Waleed Abdalati, NASA's chief of cyrospheric sciences. "This is going to be a watershed year."
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Video and Galleries from SciTech
-
Video
Bottled H2O Backlash
-
Video
Hohm, sweet Hohm
-
Video
Loaded: On Tour
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 9
- next
See all 422 CommentsWe need a disease that spreads rapidly & quickly that makes women sterile. If you''re so desperate to have a baby then adopt one of the many unwanted ones.
These poor, ignorant women cranking out babies like their life depends on it. They don''t need to be having all these babies.
Someone just trying to whisper doom and gloom to you so you don''t feel bad about them stripping the cash out of your wallet.
Like babbling idiots they love to hear themselves talk.
Their future is as far as their nose takes them and as deep as their wallets.
Who cares about the consequences of losing so much ice as long as the repub president can get a cold one.
Good luck to us all.
NASA should hire them.
hahaha
does you glass of icewater overflow when the ice melts
nopethere has been climate change forever and there will always be climate change
adapt or die like the dinosaurs
move to higher ground
Posted by terrorislam7 at 06:07 AM
Two idiots that listen to other idiots as to the logic of ice melting.
A simple experiment would prove these two as being STUPID.
Posted by cfin5
Wow, you''re soooo smart to tie taxes, libs and global warming together in one package.
Does your mommy pack your lunch and dress you also?
Someone just trying to whisper doom and gloom to you so you don''''t feel bad about them stripping the cash out of your wallet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by squidly8 at 07:04 AM : Dec 13, 2007
So, what you are saying, is to believe you instead. Is it your gut feeling? Or do you just choose to believe politicians over scientists? You think Cheney knows more than so called experts? And just who are you to decide? You have oil stock? Really, I want to know. Whats your motivation?
The U.S. invited 16 other "major economies" to discuss a possible program of nationally determined, voluntary cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions, as opposed to the binding targets favored by the EU and others now meeting in Bali.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/13/climate.conference.ap/index.html
-------
You can''t blame Europe for telling the Bush administration that voluntary, unenforceable "targets" are not worth their time.
Someone just trying to whisper doom and gloom to you so you don''''t feel bad about them stripping the cash out of your wallet.
Posted by squidly8 at 07:04 AM : Dec 13, 2007
+ report abuse
Yo don''t do much in the area of research do you?? You can''t just let OTHERS, especially those who PROFIT from the continued burning of Oil, to do that research for you. I have! At no time in recorded history has the Ice Cap melted... NO TIME. According to this study done by NASA there will be NO SEA Ice in 5 years. So how accruate have they been up to this point? Pretty close... and those who now say we''re not to blame only a couple of years ago told us it was all a hoaks? If the Scientist are right we are in deep trouble. If you are right nothing will be different. Sparky I''ve been on this planet for 60 years now and ONLY a fool believes what you posted... ONLY A FOOL!!
"We also are serious enough that we are putting a major investment into technologies that we need tomorrow -- how to produce power from coal with low emissions, how to power vehicles with low emissions. These are enormous undertakings and we have to be more aggressive with them," he said.
Reaponse:
They accused the Bush administration of hypocrisy for promoting cleaner energy options while at the same time threatening to veto an energy bill passed by the House of Representatives that includes requirements that electric utilities produce 15 percent of their power from solar, wind and other renewable energy sources.
Posted by cfin5 at 07:42 AM : Dec 13, 2007
There is no such thing as the president of Australia.
You obviously can only handle what "compassionate conservs" spoon feed you.
You''ll wake up in a few years, it''ll be late but you will, and then you and yours will remember your stupid postings.
by cfin5
Okay, I''ll give you more. Clinton gave us a surplus, Bush gave us deficts, record ones. Bush is not a fiscal conservative. Look at the dollar. Or is that the dems doing too? Clinton lied about an affair, Bush lied us into war. Perspective please. I''m all for lower taxes. In fact, I''m for getting rid of the income tax. Neither party wants that. Just the mavericks like Paul and Huckabee. Unfortunately, they have some other wacky ideas that don''t play so well. Let''s face it, the dems and reps are basically the same. They''re looking after their own interests first and foremost. Then I see people on these message boards spouting party lines like it really means something. Anyone qualified to be the next president is too smart to run. That''s why we get what we get. We made our bed.
I''ll take a tax-and-spend politician over a borrow-and-spend politician any day of the week.
Posted by mikebeat1 at 07:51 AM : Dec 13, 2007
Agreed, on two points.
I am an Independent and have been for 35 years. Why? Because both parties place their respective agenda above the good of the country as a whole.
Our system makes it impossible for anything but a corporate w h o r e to become elected president.
As Colin Powell mused in his autobiography "My American Journey", "how does an honest man come up with $50 million dollars to run for president? (Update that to $200 million)
Posted by rharrin1 at 07:59 AM : Dec 13, 2007
Want "warm fuzzies"? Go to http://abcnews.go.com/gma.
This is a news site.
Probably still supports Bush too and his wars and wishes we would invade Iran because that would make him feel good.
How about taking less trip, riding your bike to the store, turning off more lights, driving a smaller car and car pool or even take the bus. What does that have to do with a roof. You know there is other news besides Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
It is a huge problem but you hate science, likely because you couldn''t do it in 9th grade.
Yeah, just take care of yourself: Scrw 90% of the world''s population that will be devistated. Oh...but you will Pray. Rediculous superstition!
Posted by degress12 at 08:06 AM : Dec 13, 2007
Because they count on most Americans being too intellectually lazy and distracted with their own diversions to notice what''s really going on.
And, unfortunately for all of us, it works for many....
Well said. As some comedian said (might have been Carlin): I consider myself a radical centrist. Clinton (with all his faults) was a moderate. Nixon (with all his faults) was a moderate. Reagan was very conservative but, at least he surrounded himself with intelligent people that he actually listened to. I''m not as concerned with ideology as I am with common sense.
Thanks. I appreciate your posts as well.
Presently, we Independents make up 35% of the electorate.
If we ever become an electorate where both the Dems and the Repubs were to find themselves in a minority position, we would have an end to this sad status quo.
To date, we Independents have been divided by both parties..effectively keeping the status quo alive and healthy.
Posted by fstop100 at 08:21 AM : Dec 13, 2007
Having a president who''s alliegence was to the country rather than the fossil fuels interests would be an even better start.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 08:28 AM : Dec 13, 2007
You are on target. Well said
1) The bible is always right even though they have never read it but I listen to some one else tell me what is in it.
2) Believe the party line no matter what reality teaches us that includes the part about the bible.
3) Try to destroy anyone who disagrees with you.
4) Blame a liberal for the problems that the GOP created like war, out of control government spending even though the GOP did it (see number 2).
5) When that fails blame Bill Clinton. Even though he is one of the most popular Presidents in US history.
6) If no one is still listening and some bush bots are starting to stray announce your hatred for Hillary Clinton.
7) When all else fails then rant, rave, holler, cry, whine until you get your way or are completely destroyed as a party.
Seems like this group is working on reaching number 7.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 08:28 AM : Dec 13, 2007
You are well informed. Just think of the reduction in fossil fuels if the power transmission lines across the country were also fitted with thousands of wind turbines. A significant amount of energy would be generated reducing oil & coal dependancy.
Thank you.
This administration''s efforst are focused on keeping America as dependent on petroleum as possible for as long as possible.
Nuclear has been completely ignored.
Geothermal has been completely ignored.
Solar has been completely ignored.
Wind has been completely ignored.
What they have done is work on a "cleaner" coal which is still filthy as hell compared to the above mentioned and spent our treasury and warriors securing foreign supplies of, you guessed it, more crude.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by ttinsly at 08:34 AM : Dec 13, 2007
Thank you your points are well taken.
mennowoman"
I hate to burst your bubble but the global changes are NOT going to be reversed with silly PC fixits like recycling your old newspapers- just transporting and reprocessing that garbage will itself produce pollution and use fossil fuel
Turning unused lights off or not driving 1 day a week is also not going to do a dam thing. Cars today get 300% more MPG than those in the 70''s did, yet we import MORE oil than ever because the US pop went from 150 mil in 1950 to over 300 Mil in 2005- THAT is the problem. Your decision to have NO children or 1 instead of 3 will do 100 times more than all the recycling and cutbacks you can possibly do- it will totally eliminate 1 to 3 cars off the road, 1-3 new homes being built, 1-3 more utility hookups for those homes, 1-3 units of acres and acres of farmland not being used to feed those mouths, and so on.
200 years of industrial polution and huge increases in population are not going to be even dented by the piddling bit of recycling or conservation people do- its too LATE for that and any clueless fool can see that.
Posted by ttinsly at 08:50 AM : Dec 13, 2007
This is a hallmark of the Bush doctrine which states" do whatever you wish, or nothing at all if you wish, and if it turns out to be a disaster, leave it for someone else to clean up".
Obviously, not ANY cluless fool. Most still think we can procreate ad infinitim without consequence....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 08:47 AM : Dec 13, 2007 Your comments are very true. Back in the 70''s I spent many hours on top of power plants sampling emmissions for new R&D equipment to produce cleaner emmissions.
You were probably asked to sample on days of maximum wind conditions as well, weren''t you?
Actually, you might be better served going south as the impacts on the equatorial zone will be far less than in the higher latitudes......
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 9
- next
See all 422 Comments