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
-
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.
More From SciTech
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 22
- next
See all 422 CommentsPosted by octavianfdlr at 12:38 PM : Dec 14, 2007
Hmmm, do you think this person is from this planet? Maybe they are just visiting from another planet, that would explain the ignorance, wouldn''t it?
No. The Arctic was not melting last winter. The Arctic has not been melting relentlessly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by octavianfdlr at 12:38 PM : Dec 14, 2007
Sort of a ridiculous statement, bit akin to saying it is dark of a night.
''''According to the sim hypothesis, this cycle should be like Sunspot Cycle No 14, and be followed by two that will create a brief ice age.'''' - MACKEY, R., 2007. Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth%u2019s climate. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 50 (Proceedings of the 9th International Coastal Symposium), 955 %u2013 968. Gold Coast, Australia, ISSN 0749.0208
The paper is a true tribute to Dr. Fairbridge and a real eye opener, even for three blind men.
Interesting distortion of the scientific method, but not surprising. You left out the first step- research. You look at what other people have done, then maybe do some research of your own, THEN you look for a hypothesis that fits ALL of the facts your research discovered. More research may lead to more facts and a new hypothesis.
Of course, in your version, you form a hypothesis that fits your political/religious/economic views FIRST, the select any facts that might fit. If you need more, you buy some research. And of course you ignore research that does not fit your "lets pretend" science.
Most scientists who see evidence of human-caused climate change did not start outlooking for that, most have changed their mind based on evidence and interaction.
EARTH RECOVERED VERY NICELY..."
Exactly. And at that time the Earth could not support human life. The Earth will be here. It is human life in question now. This is not charity, it is about survival.
----------------
No. The Arctic was not melting last winter. The Arctic has not been melting relentlessly.
If he agrees to their mandatory limits now then there is no need for follow on conferences - just get the US nose to the grindstone on reduction.
The EU has said one way or another it is not following his conference. Which is fine as the EU has a history of bad solutions to problems. Lots of action but no good direction.
Again the minor human thumb on the scale is CO2 balance -- which has two parts CO2 production and CO2 recycling. CO2 production is more easily countered by planting CO2 recycling plants. There might be some call for genetic engineering there and hydroponic gardens. And guess what? That helps put mankind on a path to space that gets industry off the surface of this planet.
If anything the human contribution is the killing of plant mass in the equation. Replant efficient CO2 re-processors or stop eating (i.e. die) and stop technology that kills plants (all non-dead plant reclamation tech).
The only practical way to slightly delay warming is to kill off at least 75% of humanity within a couple years. And guess what? That is the same as the consequence as letting global warming happen except it favors the rich who would implement extermination.
The truth is humans may put their thumb on the scale with pollution but the big weight on the scale is nothing we can do anything about,nature, volcanic processes (trillions of tons of CO2) and tiny solar variances (which are significant because because equilibrium conditions are not linear - 0.01% more sunlight melts a lot of ice over a year).
Regardless get ready for a new age of war and the fall of rationale civilization. We''ll get to see which religion is most accurate about the end times, if any are. Oh and that initial 75% kill will lead to more death as technology and civilization collapses for many years.
But honestly if someone doesn''t get carried away with faulty bio-warfare plagues, I suspect a new adjusted civilization will start forming up in 50 years with 1-5% of current population levels. Probably neo-Roman states and technology for the general populace. Maybe some closely guarded remnants of technological infrastructure and knowledge as a core for rapid rebuilding.
The only practical way to slightly delay warming is to kill off at least 75% of humanity within a couple years. And guess what? That is the same as the consequence as letting global warming happen except it favors the rich who would implement extermination.
The truth is humans may put their thumb on the scale with pollution but the big weight on the scale is nothing we can do anything about,nature, volcanoes and tiny solar variances (which are significant because because equilibrium conditions are not linear).
Regardless get ready for a new age of war and the fall of rationale civilization. We''ll get to see which religion is most accurate about the end times, if any are. Oh and that initial 75% kill will lead to more death as technology and civilization collapses for many years.
But honestly if someone doesn''t get carried away with faulty bio-warfare plagues, I suspect a new adjusted civilization will start forming up in 50 years with 1-5% of current population levels. Probably neo-Roman states and technology for the general populace. Maybe some closely guarded remnants of technological infrastructure and knowledge as a core for rapid rebuilding.
I was just about to say the same thing. I don''t think there is a time when I have read one of her posts where the information has been accurate.
but if the US joins Australia as the last holdout on Kyoto, there will be so much impetus for corporate investment in non-fossil fuel energy, India and China will be scrambling to join the club. They already know they are just as vulnerable to extreme weather and disasterous effects of climate change as anyone else, maybe more so.
Hi zoo, haven''t seen you in a while.
No, back then it was religious ignorance and intolerance that stood in the way of the findings of scientists. What''''s your excuse?
Posted by pakaal at 08:30 PM : Dec 13, 2007
You always seem to become what you hate????
America is now a communist oligarchy
Isreal is a Nazi atheistic state
And science is a guy in Rome with a zodiac fish hat
Yea two sheep tend to look the same, glueing monkey parts on human skulls, hollywood and computer graphics, quantum krap from some society worshipping African tribe.... but you yo-yos believe anything.
2.If we have gone past "tipping points" as suggested by some, then the party is over. We can all just sing Nearer My God To Thee as our coastal cities sink. Blub blub blub. [Maybe we can genetically engineer gills?]
It is true, previous records show temperature increase before CO2 increase. They both work together; if you look closely at the graph, as temp. increases CO2 increases which then increases the temp. and so on... It''s called positive feedback.
But now, humans are putting more CO2 in the atmosphere than any previous record has shown. The highest past recorded value is 280ppm, it is now up to 385ppm. Will this increase the temperature? According the science of blackbody radiation, yes. How much? That is what the controversy is all about.
All scientists agree with the above, the question of how much is where they don''t.
There is no proof the bad weather is human caused, there has always been bad weather. But, how would one propose to get the average person to change their habits? Painting a picture of doomsday is effective, but not pointing out the negatives will ensure our continued overuse of fossil fuel burning.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 22
- next
See all 422 Comments