The problem with bad news on climate change is that it just keeps stacking up and up, and the media, inevitably, gets bored with what seems to be "more of the same". This is probably why the Arctic ice pack story hasn't got anything like the attention it deserved this week.
Sea ice in the Arctic has failed to re-form for the second consecutive winter...
The greatest fear is that an environmental "positive feedback" has kicked in, where global warming melts ice which in itself causes the seas to warm still further as more sunlight is absorbed by a dark ocean rather than being reflected by white ice....
Although sea levels are not affected by melting sea ice - which floats on the ocean - the Arctic ice cover is thought to be a key moderator of the northern hemisphere's climate. It helps to stabilise the massive land glaciers and ice sheets of Greenland which have the capacity to raise sea levels dramatically.
If that isn't scary enough for you, the killer line is on the end of the article - that this outcome is predicted by climate change models, but under those models it was not supposed to happen for "a few decades yet".
I've joined the Green Party, got involved in other small ways with environmental work, with the thought that I was doing my bit to prevent catastrophe after I was dead. After reading and thinking about this story, however, I had a flash of a serious thought, for the first time, whether I should buy 10 acres in some carefully calculated spot (somewhere high up, but not likely to get too hot), build a bloody great wall around it, and learn how to get self-sufficient, fast.
I've read a bit around the fall of the Roman Empire. They didn't believe it could happen either - at least not in their lifetimes.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Hoggle
Good article. The trouble with science is that it moves too slow. By the time it proves that climate change will destroy civilisation, the remaining people won't have the time or inclination to read their publications - they'll be too busy trying to find their next meal in a failing ecosystem.
To avoid this consequence, we must not only stop emitting CO2, we must find a way to accelerate its extraction from the atmosphere.
2 - Natalie Bennett
Indeed, Hoggle. The nature of the scientific method is that "proof", in the absolute sense, will only come at the point when we all suddenly realise the usefulness of flippers.
From what I've heard a sensible framework is for one-third of the reduction in greenhouse gas emmission to come from energy saving (which is INCREDIBLY) easy, one third from using renewable energy such as solar and wind, and one third from carbon sequestration. Although I must admit to doubts about the last. The problem is that if you start storing huge quantities, you better be very, very sure it is not going to - ever - escape.
3 - DJRadiohead
This is good stuff. The problem with most modern activism is the lack of action. There is a lot of talking and hot air (which can't help with global warming a bit) and not a lot of doing.
It's good to see some doing rather than the bitching, moaning, and pretentious lecturing that so often attempts to pass for activism.
4 - Hoggle
It depends on your targets - Those adopted by Kyoto are like trying to avoid drowning by carrying a bucket. Efficiency through conversion to decentralised power generation might reduce emissions by 20% alone. Of course, the fastest way to do it would be to add the cost of extracting the CO2 from the atmosphere to the fuels at the point of consumption.
But any government that did that too quickly would crash their economy. If that was done we would not be able to prepare for the consequences we can't avoid.
5 - Brian Sorrell
Excellent job Natalie!
I think that part of the problem with this discussion, as far as the mainstream media is concerned, is that most folks are caught in a false dilemma: that global warming is either a natural occurrence or that global warming is due to human-based influences. Thus pundits and commentators tend to fall into (false) opposing camps and lots of petty scrapping happens while little gets solved.
There is sufficient evidence on both sides of the dilemma, which suggests to me that human influences have exacerbated natural phenomena. From my perspective, this reframes the question to something like "How do we regulate human behavior such that it will not exacerbate natural warming?"
I think that the topic stated in that sort of way allows that neither side of the false dilemma has to lose face (which so important in the MSM), and some positive discussion might finally start.
Optimistically, I see this starting to happen. Now, is it too late??
6 - sal m
how does evidence on both sides of the dilemma suggest that human influences have exacerbated natural phenomena?
why is the science that indicates that a drastic climate change is coming any more reliable than the science that indicates contrary findings?
what accounts for the past climactic shifts that the planet has undergone before man walked the earth and/or had these behaviors that are supposed to be able to impact this shift?
i find it hard to believe that science can predict any cataclysmic climate changes when it can't even accurately predict the weather.
7 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
So far with climate change, we've been dealing with the boiling frog syndrome. You put the frog in cool to medium water in a pot and light a slow fire underneath. The frog never realizes as it warms up, that it is cooking to death - till it is too late.
8 - Natalie Bennett
Sal, when you have consensus among experts in the field, when the climate is behaving in just the way the models are predicting, when you see the end-point of those models, can you afford not to believe?
The difference between now and previous "natural" climate change is that then it usually happened over tens or hundreds of thousands of years, so ecosystems had time to adjust. Now this is happening over decades...
And predicting the weather at any one minute in time is actually a great deal more complicated than looking at say ocean temperature and what it is likely to be in ten years' time, because the influences are much greater.
9 - Brian Sorrell
how does evidence on both sides of the dilemma suggest that human influences have exacerbated natural phenomena?
What I want to say is that the media spin on this issue seems to play one set of data against another set of data. My suggestion is that there is plenty of evidence that, over long periods of time, there have been changes in the climate without human influence. There is also plenty of evidence that shows that recent changes in the climate have been very rapid compared to prior periods of change. All of this taken together suggests that there are many influences on climate change, and that human action is one of those influences -- possibly (likely) a significant influence.
why is the science that indicates that a drastic climate change is coming any more reliable than the science that indicates contrary findings?
This is exactly the false dilemma that I'm talking about. See how you shut the discussion off by asking the question in this way? (That's a rhetorical question, so don't just answer "No".)
i find it hard to believe that science can predict any cataclysmic climate changes when it can't even accurately predict the weather.
Even if you were correct in your assertion that weather prediction is not accurate, the failure of one scientific model does not imply the failure of all other scientific models. But then, your assessment of weather prediction is indeed wrong. So even if we allowed the logical gaff, your point would not stand.
10 - DJRadiohead
But then, your assessment of weather prediction is indeed wrong.
Forgive me for getting off on a bit of a tangent in an otherwise larger debate but weather forecasting does indeed still leave a lot to be desired.
when you have consensus among experts in the field, when the climate is behaving in just the way the models are predicting, when you see the end-point of those models, can you afford not to believe?
Can you afford not to be skeptical? Consider how many times the experts agreed and the experts proved wrong over time. I use the word skeptical because I do not think we should ignore the experts, either. There has to be a balance. I think this is what Brian alludes to in his comments. We should not rush to judgment or to action and we should not fail to be aware of mounting data.
11 - Natalie Bennett
But there is now data, a vast amount of data, that is all pointing one way. Hell, you can even feel it - in the heat of summer, in the disturbed winter weather.
Nine of the past ten years have been the world's hottest on record, and the odd one out was in the decade before that.
That, with extremely solid data on rising ocean temperatures, on melting icecaps, on ecological change, with species living in places previously too cold for them - what more do you want?
12 - DJRadiohead
Nine of the past 10 years is not that large a snapshot in the grand scheme of things and I am not sure how confident I am in our ability to truly know temperature data from 500 years ago let alone 5,000 years ago.
I think we can do better by our environment and should. I also think maintaining some degree of skepticism and an open mind that we still might not know what the blue hell we are talking about is in order in light of everything we don't know. For all the data we have in hand there is still so much we do not have. Does that mean we should not take steps to put to use the knowledge we have gained? Certainly not. Remaining skeptical so as not to create new problems with our solutions to this one seems reasonable.
As for it all pointing one direction, I submit the current climate for presenting data suggesting other possibilities is not hospitable. Are we getting the answers we are looking for or are we getting the truth?
I am glad to hear you took some action in addition to writing your column here. I think that is awesome.
13 - Natalie Bennett
The climate for alternative ideas not hospitable? Huh? With George Bush and the oil lobby running around begging someone, anyone, to come up with an "alternative" view.
And if you are worried about the timeframe, there was a study that went back 1,200 years, using a wide range of techniques.
14 - fos
Im waiting for my beach-front in Missouri.
15 - fos
What the heck, 14,15, and 16. How did this happen. Im flooded out.
16 - Brian Sorrell
There's more to evidence of global warming than simply "knowing temperature data". There is plenty of geologic and fossil data, for example, that yields insights into how things have changed over time.
I think that it's pretty clear that human actions have an influence on large-scale climate patterns. Personally, I don't feel that the extent of that effect changes whether we should take action to lessen the effect. We should make changes. Big changes. My point is that we should recognize, at the same time, that there is more going on than just human consumption.
Or how about if I put it this way: we should allow the topic to remain as incredibly complicated as it clearly is, and at the same time, recognize that human actions contribute to the problem -- and that's something in our control.
I just find that polarizing the issue is dangerous because, much as in US politics, the false debate ends up overshadowing the significance of the problem.
17 - JP
Thanks for posting this, it needs the exposure since our current leadership has its head buried in the sand.
18 - Hoggle
I would like to point out that most politicians - including (at least in his words if not in his actions) the imbecile in the whitehouse, now accept that the science is incontravertible, and the IPCC's next report will underline that fact. The only areas of scientific doubt that remain are around the speed of the impact and it's exact nature. The regular presentation of the topic as bi-polar is a media manufactured debate and does not represent the views of the scientific community accurately.
The debate is now, almost wholly, under the heading "What can we do to avoid the destruction of civilisation". No-one who has actually studied the topic for any length of time now denies that climate change has the potential to cause such destruction, nor that it is happening.
Even the arch-denier, Bjorn Lomborg, restricts himself to claiming that the money to alleviate the dangers would be better spent on other, more immediate issues - a tacit admission that it is an issue that will have to be dealt with eventually.
I invite you all to join a more general discussion on the politics of climate change
19 - Dave Nalle
And Hoggle swallows the whole goldfish without having to chew. Good job.
The idea that there's unanimity on this issue among scientists is absolutely laughable. The numbers of climatologists who question the idea of human agency is enormous and growing, and there's still a substantial body who question the entire theory of global warming and the models on which it is based.
And the idea that global warming will lead to 'the destruction of civilization' is just ridiculous.
This is a case of those who support the theory operating on the belief that if they shout loud enough and deny the existence of reality strongly enough then people will stop pointing out the flaws in their theory.
That's not the way scientific discourse works and as a technique it demonstrates that the global warming supporters are scientifically bankrupt and are relying on political bully tactics to push their agenda.
Dave
20 - Natalie Bennett
Can you quote some of these scientists Dave, and the reputable journals they've been published in?
As for the collapse of civilisation - well a 2m rise in sea levels is going to wipe out a majority of the world's major cities. Might be a bit of impact on civilisation there, just for starters.
21 - Dave Nalle
Can you quote some of these scientists Dave, and the reputable journals they've been published in?
Of course I can, but I'm working on a whole article about it, so I'll hold off on doing it right here and now. We're talking journals like Science Daily, the Journal of the American Chemical Society, Research News and others.
As for the collapse of civilisation - well a 2m rise in sea levels is going to wipe out a majority of the world's major cities. Might be a bit of impact on civilisation there, just for starters.
You may have misread your figures there. The predicted rise in sea levels at the most generous is more like 1m over the next century, and more typical estimates are in the 10cm range - and even that is a considerable acceleration over the 2.5cm rise of the last century. There is some concern for Tuvalu and some of the other sea-level islands, but the whole flooded cities scenario is unrealistic.
DAve
22 - Natalie Bennett
Tuvalu is indeed facing the effects, as this article demonstrates. And 1m over the coming century is what is generally predicted, as in this article, with more to come after that. Beyond that you've looking at 2m in the span of some decades.
One metre will make one hell of a difference, particularly combined with more extreme weather conditions - more hurricanes and stronger hurricanes etc.
23 - Dave Nalle
1m is serious, but it's something that can be dealt with. Coastal cities around the world were able to deal with that much higher sea levels in the last warming period with much less sophisticated technology than we have today. The sea levels in the period prior to 1200ad were considerably higher than are projected for the next century and people survived.
Remember the Netherlands has functioned fine with 25% of its land area below sea level for over a thousand years.
Dave
24 - Hoggle
If I can quote from the ethical guidelines of the ACS:
B. Ethical Obligations of Authors
1. An author’s central obligation is to present an accurate account of the research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
and
12. The authors should reveal to the editor any potential conflict of interest, e.g., a consulting or financial interest in a company, that might be affected by publication of the results contained in a manuscript.
I look forward to your posting a link to the article here so that we may read it and discover how this conspiracy has been achieved in the face of such intense scrutiny by an antagonistic opposition funded by the richest corporations in the world.
25 - Dave Nalle
Ok, Hoggle, just for you, here's the ACS Article. Take particular note of the comment in the last paragraph about being war of 'environmental zealots'.
Dave