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, in particular, is a significant bellwether. Most of its surface is covered by ice. If it completely melted - something key scientists think would likely take centuries, not decades - it could add more than 22 feet to the world's sea level.
However, for nearly the past 30 years, the data pattern of its ice sheet melt has zigzagged. A bad year, like 2005, would be followed by a couple of lesser years.
According to that pattern, 2007 shouldn't have been a major melt year, but it was, said Konrad Steffen, of the University of Colorado, which gathered the latest data.
"I'm quite concerned," he said. "Now I look at 2008. Will it be even warmer than the past year?"
Other new data, from a NASA satellite, measures ice volume. NASA geophysicist Scott Luthcke, reviewing it and other Greenland numbers, concluded: "We are quite likely entering a new regime."
Melting of sea ice and Greenland's ice sheets also alarms scientists because they become part of a troubling spiral.
White sea ice reflects about 80 percent of the sun's heat off Earth, NASA's Zwally said. When there is no sea ice, about 90 percent of the heat goes into the ocean which then warms everything else up. Warmer oceans then lead to more melting.
"That feedback is the key to why the models predict that the Arctic warming is going to be faster," Zwally said. "It's getting even worse than the models predicted."
NASA scientist James Hansen, the lone-wolf researcher often called the godfather of global warming, on Thursday was to tell scientists and others at the American Geophysical Union scientific in San Francisco that in some ways Earth has hit one of his so-called tipping points, based on Greenland melt data.
"We have passed that and some other tipping points in the way that I will define them," Hansen said in an e-mail. "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."
Last year, Cecilia Bitz at the University of Washington and Marika Holland at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado startled their colleagues when they predicted an Arctic free of sea ice in just a few decades. Both say they are surprised by the dramatic melt of 2007.
Bitz, unlike others at NASA, believes that "next year we'll be back to normal, but we'll be seeing big anomalies again, occurring more frequently in the future." And that normal, she said, is still a "relentless decline" in ice.
Meanwhile, European nations on Thursday threatened to boycott a U.S.-led climate meeting next month unless Washington agrees to a deal mentioning numerical targets for deep reductions in global warming gases.
The United Nations warned that time was running out for an agreement aimed at launching negotiations for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol and the talks in Bali were in danger of "falling to pieces."
The United States, Japan, Russia and several other governments refuse to accept language in a draft document suggesting that industrialized nations consider cutting emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent by 2020, saying specific targets would limit the scope of future talks.
The European Union and others say the figures reflect the measures scientists say are needed to rein in global warming and head off predictions of rising sea levels, worsening floods and droughts, and the extinction of plant and animal species.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 422 Comments
- 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
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? - Reply to this comment
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.- Reply to this comment
- We have only been in space for a relatively few years sp all we can see is the ''Elephants Tail'' from that angle. From the latest satellite technology we now know that there is an active volcano under Greenland (no I haven''t seen a CBS article on it yet but the information is available from other on-line News media. From telescopes we see Jupiter, Mars and even Pluto warming from Solar activity. The ''stop global warming'' group is in total denial of the natural causes because there is not a thing that can be done to stop it, not that cleaning up our air isn''t a good idea anyway. But getting back to the article, this is NOT the first time that the arctic will be ice free and it won''t be the last. Quoting a recent paper:
''''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. - Reply to this comment
- andor3 ........The Scientific method is used. No one can dispute the photos taken over the years from space. A picture is worth a thousand words. however, the blind can''t see, and neither can people & business groups with private agendas.
- Reply to this comment
- "Of course they look for evidence that only supports their theory or did you not learn this in school. First you have a hypothesis, then a theory, duh! Then another scientist will try to disprove the theory, cherrypicking as they go along. Don''t believe me? Go look up how the theory of realitivity was developed."
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. - Reply to this comment
- "IN THE BEGINNING EARTH WAS MOSTLY VOLCANOES ERUPTING AND SPEWING FORTH ALL KINDS OF GASES AND MATERIAL!
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. - Reply to this comment
- "An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer, a warning sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point. One speculates that summer sea ice might be gone in just five years." --The above article
----------------
No. The Arctic was not melting last winter. The Arctic has not been melting relentlessly. - Reply to this comment
- The Bush administration has rejected reduction of fossile fuel burning citing severe economic impacts.The Cheney energy policy expands US interests in The Caspian Sea region where one third of the world''s oil remains untapped. Big Oil does not want alternative energy because they are profit motivated. Big Oil & Corporate America dictate US policy not the people. We are just pawns in their game.
- Reply to this comment
- Oh on the treaties? I note that Bush is in lose-lose situation.
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. - Reply to this comment
- Funny have you looked at how much CO2 volcanic process put in the air worldwide? Human pollution add-ons are pretty local to bigger urban areas. Volcanoes do it even at sea (78% of Earth).
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). - Reply to this comment
- Global warming is a Capitalist''s dream!!! Buy land at higher elevations and roughly prepare it for farming and cities.
- Reply to this comment
- Talk about emotional panic issue. This global warming is eventually coming no matter what current human technology can do.
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. - Reply to this comment
- Talk about emotional panic issue. This global warming is eventually coming no matter what current human technology can do. It does not mean the end of humanity though certainly a majority of individuals may die.
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. - Reply to this comment
- "I see Gaye 05 is desperately posting misinformation, as is her usual habit..." posted by rheola
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. - Reply to this comment
- craigdillon... right on both counts.
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. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by zootallures2 at 09:43 PM : Dec 13, 2007
Hi zoo, haven''t seen you in a while. - Reply to this comment
- Hawksprings: "Was the Scientific Consensus wrong about a earth-centered universe in Copernicus'''''''' day?"
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 - Reply to this comment
- Cloning, evolution, going to other planets, quantum physics...
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. - Reply to this comment
- 1. Kyoto Protocol is a red herring. The exclusion of India and China makes it a useless document. China''s and India''s output of CO2 is climbing fast. Their exclusion is a mockery. [This just proves even an idiot like Bush will get something right sometime.]
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?] - Reply to this comment
- The science proves that CO2 has an effect on the temperature of the atmosphere. It is a greenhouse gas that is responsible for keeping our planet warm. Without it the Earth would be an ice ball.
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. - Reply to this comment
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
