Daily Kos

Slip Sliding Away

Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:25:44 PM PDT

chillin' - Liberal Street Fighter

A sobering piece in the NY Times highlights the snowballing (sorry, couldn't resist) damage being caused in the artic by global warming:

At age 73, Dr. Koerner, known as Fritz, still regularly hikes high on the ancient glaciers abutting the warming ocean to extract cores showing past climate trends. And every one, he said, indicates that the Arctic warming under way over the last century is different from that seen in past warm eras.



Many scientists say it has taken a long time for them to accept that global warming, partly the result of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, could shrink the Arctic's summer cloak of ice.

But many of those same scientists have concluded that the momentum behind human-caused warming, combined with the region's tendency to amplify change, has put the familiar Arctic past the point of no return.

The particularly sharp warming and melting in the last few decades is thought by many experts to result from a mix of human and natural causes. But a number of recent computer simulations of global climate run by half a dozen research centers around the world show that in the future human influence will dominate.

Even with just modest growth in emissions of the greenhouse gases, almost all of the summer sea ice is likely to disappear by late in the century. Some of the simulations, including those run on an advanced model at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., show much of the summer ice disappearing by 2050, said Marika Holland, a scientist there who is working on the sea-ice portion of that model.


The corpoflack "scientists" that the Republicans like to put forward as experts like to insist that what we are actually seeing are just natural cycles, the same argument used to deny that the recent increase in hurricane severity has anything to do with human impacts on the environment. In typical winger/greedhead fashion, we're presented with a simple minded formulation: it's EITHER a natural cycle OR it's the result of human action. Apparently they have never watched a child push a hula-hoop downhill, where a NATURAL result of gravity is FACILITATED by human action. Too complicated for simple minds, I suppose:

The emerging picture of great Arctic changes ahead comes from the interlaced efforts of the modelers in their climate-controlled computer rooms and field scientists with numb toes and frosted beards. It will long remain a work in progress. But the underlying trends are robust, many Arctic scientists say.

Field work suggests that past Arctic warm spells, like a stretch through the 1920's and 1930's, were limited to certain regions, while the recent warming has largely progressed in concert with rising temperatures around the Northern Hemisphere - a sign of large forces at work, climate scientists say, not regional variability.

Field studies have also provided information on how energy flows from air to ocean and into melting ice, how melting ice freshens water and growing ice makes it saltier - all dynamics that have helped modelers refine their programs.

Recent expeditions on icebreakers have started building the first detailed picture of the communities of algae, plankton, small cod, seals and polar bears that form an ice-based ecosystem as tenuous as the ice itself.

In the virtual Arctic of computer simulations, thousands of lines of computer code mimic how ice, oceans and the atmosphere interact and are components of larger global models of earth's climate and oceans.

The models are the only way to test how the planet may react to various human actions. Because there is only one earth, there are no other options for such studies, given that the real earth is already well along in an unintended experiment - the rapid buildup of long-lived greenhouse gases.

Those who work in that realm have steadily improved their simulations. A decade ago, for instance, most depicted sea ice just as static reflective slabs, and almost all now replicate how ice is tugged by wind and ocean currents, Dr. Holland said.

The inevitability of summer ice retreats, she and other Arctic experts say, is a result of the nature of the climate system, which is something like a heavy flywheel. Once started, flywheels tend to keep going. Within a few decades, say many scientists focused on the region, the insulating power of greenhouse gases will dominate natural climate fluctuations, possibly for centuries.

And the flywheel in the Arctic moves faster than in other areas because the region amplifies change. The most obvious mechanism is the difference in how bright white sea ice and the dark sea act under sunlight. Ice reflects most of the solar energy striking it back into space. Water absorbs most of it.

A result is that each area of ocean exposed by melting ice soaks up heat, melting more ice, exposing more sea, soaking up even more heat - and so on, until the annual marathons held each spring on the floating ice near the North Pole are replaced by boat races.

Of course, many of us wimpy lefties focus on destroyed cultures and species facing extinction. There is, however, if you look at it with the right bloodthirsty eyes, a bright side to these changes:

Even with just modest growth in emissions of the greenhouse gases, almost all of the summer sea ice is likely to disappear by late in the century. Some of the simulations, including those run on an advanced model at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., show much of the summer ice disappearing by 2050, said Marika Holland, a scientist there who is working on the sea-ice portion of that model.

Of the various simulations, all done for an international scientific report on climate trends to be issued in 2007, the only ones that retain much summer sea ice in the Arctic by 2100 are those that assume global greenhouse-gas emissions are held constant at rates measured in 2000 - something that only five years later is already impossible.

The other models all produce an Arctic Ocean in summer akin to the "open polar sea" that was sought by oceanographers and explorers in the mid-1800's. "There would definitely be shipping along the Eurasian coast, and the polar bears would have some serious issues," Dr. Holland said.

Shipping which will most likely produce opportunities for profit. So it's not all bad. Maybe a complete Mastadon skeleton or two will bubble to the suface of the bogs that are forming where there was once permafrost.

Those authors and many other experts have settled on the same picture of the region late this century: tundra retreats and forests spread; most sea ice disappears in late summer; coastlines wear away under the assault of wind-driven waves on waters that previously were sheathed in ice; permafrost turns to bogs; and ancient lakes that once sat atop permanently frozen ground drain like unplugged bathtubs.

Climatologists say the effects eventually could extend far beyond the sparsely populated north, contributing to climate and ocean shifts that could dry the American West and possibly slow north-flowing warm currents in the Atlantic Ocean that keep northern Europe milder than it would otherwise be.

The effects could also include a sharp increase in the rate at which seas are swelled by melting glacial ice and far greater warming as even more greenhouse gases, locked in permafrost and the Arctic seabed, are liberated by warming.

For example, American and Russian scientists studying lakes in northeastern Siberia recently reported that the melt of permafrost is generating methane, a potent greenhouse gas. In spots, so much methane is being released that roiling streams of bubbles prevent the surface from freezing even in the depths of the Siberian winter.

The most that can be expected, some climate scientists say, is to limit the human contribution to warming enough to forestall the one truly calamitous, if slow motion, threat in the far north: the melting of Greenland's ice cap.

Rising two miles high and spreading over an area twice the size of California, this vast reservoir - essentially the Gulf of Mexico frozen and flipped onto land - contains enough water to raise sea levels worldwide more than 20 feet.

In recent years, the ice sheets of Greenland have been building in the middle through added snowfall but melting even more around the edges in summer. Many Greenland experts say the melting is already winning out.

There is more info (LOTS more) available at the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. In any event, decades of stonewalling by the rightwing and the business community may very well have pushed us past the point of no return. With the ongoing assault on reason, learning, science and higher education, it's liable only to get worse, and attempts to mitigate the damage will also be thwarted.

Dr. Koerner, the Canadian glaciologist, pointed out on time scales of millenniums, the recent warming has even trumped a long cooling trend.

"The warming trend is even more significant," he said, "because it's not on a flat background but something that maybe should be getting colder."

Tags: global warming, Science, Climate (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 36 comments

  •  Jesus, Madman (4.00 / 4)

    Just...Jesus.  

    You're one the of the finest, most underappreciated writers on the blogosphere.  Your diary of yesterday, for instance, was on the best things I've read online in AGES.  This one is also great, superb, <insert superlative here>.  And scary as fuck.  Can't forget that.

    If you ever get dissatisifed with LSF, come to MLW.  I'd frontpage everything.  

    Fanboy gushing....over.  Carry on, citizens.

    "Raybin is not a lying maniac. I've found this person to be an extremely clever and devious lying conartist, but never a maniac."--RElland on Daily Kos

    by Raybin on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:43:16 PM PDT

  •  No wonder we've pinned all our hopes (4.00 / 4)

    on Fitzmas. It's long past time for some fucking good news, I say.

    Not to diminish your effort at all, MitM. Excellent diary.

    "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams.

    by mcjoan on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:43:48 PM PDT

    •  thanks (4.00 / 8)

      off topic, but I meant to send you this link.

      James McMurtry started a blog at myspace.

      A taste of his latest entry:

      Why isn't every American howling for the impeachment of little George Bush? Clinton got a blow job in the oval office, and everyone but his wife couldn't wait to get rid of him. yeah, he did lie under oath, and that should have been the cause of the outcry, but it wasn't. we didn't like Clinton because he was obviously smarter than most of us and was endowed with a girl melting charisma that was just plain threatening.

      Hillary is even more threatening because she has a similar intelligence and charisma, but also has the gall to be female.

            Little George doesn't threaten us, even as he kills us.

            He has killed us with his negligence. Anyone who had ever been to New Orleans before Katrina, knew that such a storm could inundate the city. Cab drivers would tell you on the way in from the airport. Little George has been to New Orleans. In fact, Little George has lived in New Orleans. When LG was supposed to be serving in the Texas Air Guard, he was actually in New Orleans working on a Republican Senate campaign. He is not known to have done much actual work on the campaign, but I'll bet he rode in a cab a time or two. He was there long enough to know why the graves are all above ground. Yet he told us the storm couldn't have been predicted. He joked about hanging out on Trent Lott's porch someday, he joked while bodies were still floating in attics in the ninth ward. He promised to investigate the failures himself, to find out what went wrong. His party has successfully resisted an independent investigation, but we really don't need one, we know enough already. We know that Little George remained on vacation while a category five hurricane threatened a heavily populated coastal area. We know that he staffed the FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security with cronies who had no experience in disaster relief. These acts amount to nothing short of criminal negligence. The man should be in jail.

      •  Thanks! (4.00 / 2)

        I'm going to forward that to my brother right now (he's online in the hospital). He's the one who introduced me to McMurtry.

        I knew he hated Bush, now I'm glad he has yet another outlet for it. It sure does make for some great music.

        "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams.

        by mcjoan on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 08:00:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  it's a natural cycle (4.00 / 6)

    when a species proves itself to be too stupid & destructive, mother nature gives it the boot.

    Anyone who advocates, supports, defends, rationalizes, or excuses torture has pus for brains and a case of scurvy for a conscience. - James Wolcott

    by rasbobbo on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:59:15 PM PDT

  •  The problem with the "natural cycle" (4.00 / 4)

    thing is that many proponents of this view (I don't mean the paid scientists, but the people who believe them) think they're being modern and sophisticated by taking this position.  I think of my dear, very old grandfather.  He went to forestry school back in the 1930s so we have some shared interests, but very different ideas about how "nature" works.  For him, believing that "extinctions are natural" or "there are natural climate cycles" means that he is on the cutting edge of ecological thought.  If I try to argue with him, I am being, to his view, anti-scientific and ideological.  He doesn't realize that, you know, science has progressed a bit past these misleading generalizations by now.

    So the people who are truly backwards, in terms of knowledge of natural sciences, believe this "just a natural cycle" business is actually forward-thinking.  It is not necessarily disingenuous-- it just requires that you have bowed out of receiving any additional data into your brain over the past 30 or 40 years.

  •  Question? (4.00 / 3)

    Sea ice is lost because of global warming, but once the ice fields are diminished, does this also excelerate heating?  It would seem this starts a vicious cycle, with the countering cooling effects of polar ice lessened, the check on heating is diminished and we see exponential changes.  If somebody knows the science behind this, I would be interested to know.

    Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you. Jean-Paul Sartre

    by Stevo on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 07:35:43 PM PDT

    •  Well, it should, right? (4.00 / 2)

      Since melting the ice uses up a lot of energy while the water remains the same temperature... once that melting process is all completed, the same amount of solar energy should then be able to heat the water faster.  This is correct, isn't it, guys?
      •  yup (4.00 / 9)

        and thanks to Stevo, I realized I forgot to link the NY Times piece. Not only the effect you mention, but also:

        The inevitability of summer ice retreats, she and other Arctic experts say, is a result of the nature of the climate system, which is something like a heavy flywheel. Once started, flywheels tend to keep going. Within a few decades, say many scientists focused on the region, the insulating power of greenhouse gases will dominate natural climate fluctuations, possibly for centuries.

        And the flywheel in the Arctic moves faster than in other areas because the region amplifies change. The most obvious mechanism is the difference in how bright white sea ice and the dark sea act under sunlight. Ice reflects most of the solar energy striking it back into space. Water absorbs most of it.

        A result is that each area of ocean exposed by melting ice soaks up heat, melting more ice, exposing more sea, soaking up even more heat - and so on, until the annual marathons held each spring on the floating ice near the North Pole are replaced by boat races.

    •  Some of the elements are in the diary (4.00 / 7)

      First off, loss of nice bright white polar ice caps means a reduction in albedo (reflectivity) and an increase in absorption of heat. The cooling effect of the ice caps is more about their ability to reflect light and heat back into space. It's that feedback loop that is driving the melting in the arctic. Less ice, less reflection, more heat absorption, leading to less ice, reflection, etc. Lather, rinse, repeat.

      The second piece hinted at is the effect of losing permafrost. Much of the tundra is nice rich organic soil and bogs. If it melts, there's a lot of CO2 and methane just waiting to get out. As it leaks into the atmosphere, it makes the global warming process worse.

      The other piece hinted at is the loss of the Global Thermohaline Circulation which transfers heat from the equator to the poles. Warm surface currents run to the poles making places like the UK inhabitable as they give off heat. At the poles, the water cools and increases in salinity sinking to the bottom. Deep cold water currents then move back towards the equator to heat up again and keep the cycle going. If too much freshwater from ice melt disrupts the salinity of the currents in the north, the water doesn't sink and the currents shut down. There are hints that this could be starting to happen already.

      - "You're Hells Angels, then? What chapter are you from?"
      - REVELATIONS, CHAPTER SIX.

      by Hoya90 on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 07:47:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thermohaline convection (4.00 / 2)

        loss of the Global Thermohaline Circulation which transfers heat from the equator to the poles... There are hints that this could be starting to happen already.

        what have you heard?  got a link?

        i've been wondering about that lately, and whether our wacky weather might be influenced by the beginnings of a trend like that.  or that aside, with all this arctic ice melting it seems like it can't be far away.  but if there are any indications i haven't seen them reported anywhere.

        on the plus side, if the thermohaline belt shuts down seems like the arctic ice would make a comeback!  good for the polar bears.  and winter sports in the alps, which have been suffering from lack of snow or too warm weather.  too bad the downside is that great britain will be getting winter weather just like newfoundland.  then there's the desertification of the tropical and subtropical latitudes, atlantic hurricanes that might look like they moved in from jupiter, etcetera.

        l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

        by zeke L on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 08:06:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Exxon Spin (4.00 / 3)

    New slogan for the oil company: "Turning Greenland Green".

    Also, we will get to check out Baffin Island in a t-shirt and shorts. I'll bet these folks will be seeing more traffic.

    Ever fly over Nevada? Some day Iowa will look the same.

    The plural of anecdote is not data.

    by bobinson on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 08:06:34 PM PDT

  •  Before I forget... (none / 1)

    ... excellent diary.

    I just had a thought :

    Do you suppose Mother Nature is giving us two options, namely 1) the quick way out, i.e. avian flu pandemic, or the slow, painful path, i.e. global warming?

    Add to this the very under-reported observation that as the glaciers melt, potable water will all but disappear from Asia (they get most of their water from glaciers, not from springs like we do).

    Either way(s), things certainly seem to be sort of on the decline.

    Personally, I'll take the slow, painful path, myself.

    •  Corporate theft of water (4.00 / 2)

      Coca Cola, Pepsi, and other bottlers are STEALING water rights in Asia.  They have sucked dry lots of natural springs and water sources in, for example, India, and have told folks there that the corporations own the rights to the RAIN.  People have been arrested for collecting rainwater for drinking and cooking.

      Every time we buy a bottle of water, we may be sucking someone's spring dry, unnecessarily.  (A riverlet went dry in Idyllwild, California when a big bottler diverted the stream and sucked out all the water, dragging it down the hill in tankers in the middle of the night.)

      I think the bottled water problem -- transferring water resources from one part of the country/world to another, using lots of resources to make that transfer (here in California, we can buy water from New Zealand!  Shipped in at high rates, no doubt, because water is heavy), and then the waste of all those plastic bottles -- is a big, big problem.  Me, I buy a bottle of water for the convenience, then re-use it forever by filling it from my home tap.  My city plans for me to drink a certain amount of water, and I'm not taking it from anyone else that way.  I don't think the planet expects us to use our resources this way, and I think we're creating some big problems as we go.

      /soapbox

  •  This is exactly what Al Gore said last night.. (4.00 / 6)

    If you ever have a chance to see his presentation on global warming, don't miss it. He puts the whole picture together in a way that's very understandable to the layperson. This story is giving me a sense of deja-vu, it's all the details I wish I could have written down last night.

    Terrifying. I diaried it, but am missing the hard data since I took limited notes. I think he mentioned Fritz as one of his major sources.

  •  more bad signs... (4.00 / 6)

    warm seawater in the carribean is damaging coral reefs: MAJOR CORAL BLEACHING EVENT EXPANDS ACROSS CARIBBEAN, SEVERE IN PUERTO RICO AND U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

    plankton levels in the Pacific have been below normal for several years - up to 30% below 1980 levels - and it was very bad this year.

    In a democracy, everyone is a politician. ~ Ehren Watada

    by Lefty Mama on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 08:19:52 PM PDT

  •  Peak Oil isn't the problem (none / 1)

    My best guess is that we have far more to fear from C02 accumulation than running out of oil. There really is plenty of oil available if we use Coal to Liquid(CTL) or Gas To Liquid(GTL). The problem with those technologies is that they create a lot more CO2 in production than conventionally produced oil.
  •  Huh (none / 0)

    thought this was going to be a diary on economics. Recommended though. Scary stuff.
  •  What about those (none / 1)

    blanket things they are using at some ski resorts in the Alps? Couldn't we get some of those for Greenland? Try to prevent what we can while we make adjustments? Any time bought will certainly be time we can put to use to try and reverse the situation.

    I realize this may not seem practical, but I don't think anything should be off limits here as far as ideas go. Everything should be on the table...

  •  Farewell to Erin (none / 1)

    Ireland, U.K., Scandanavia and everywhere else in Europe that's moderated by the Gulf Stream are going to get a lot colder, as the melting freshwater ice flows onto the north atlantic and shuts down much of the Atlantic circulation.

    I'd think much of western European agriculture and horticulture are about to change.

    Not to mention tourism.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 09:43:10 PM PDT

  •  Global Warming is where the left wing (none / 1)

    tends to act like the right wing.

    You criticise people as being too simplistic for assuming that global warming is either a natural cycle, or man-made, yet you lump all scientists into  believe it's all a natural cycle, or believe it's partly or fully man-made.

    It's more complex than that.

    Although I am not an ecologist, I have done scientific research using custom programmed computer simulations. (Studying reaction dynamics of organometallic compounds through modelling of transition state geometries.) And I am skeptical about any scientist who points to his computer simulation and says "look at how bad global warming will be."

    A good scientist knows when to say "I don't know what the answer is." Too many people are treating this like an election, where you need to decide on X or Y, and I don't know isn't an acceptable vote. But "I don't know" is one of the most common answers to questions which are truly on the cutting edge of science.

    Here are my four main concerns with computer climate simulations, which make me believe that "I don't know" is the best answer to the global warming threat right now:

    1. Every computer climate model I have looked at ends up with results that diverge over time. This means that if the climate goes past a certain point, it just keeps on getting more and more screwed up until the Earth is virtually uninhabiable. (I haven't looked into the models recently, because it's not my field. If there are models which predict an eventual steady-state solution, I would be interested in a reference so that I could read up about it.) LOTS of things have happened over the last billion or so years on Earth, and none of them has caused our planet to end up as a total greenhouse-heated furnance like Venus. It is reasonable to assume that the ecology of our planet is self-regulating to some extent, and will prevent catastrophic climate change under any but the most extreme circumstances. If our climate was so delicate that it can be completely trashed by a relatively small fluctuation in CO2 levels, then it probably would have happened long before now. Until the models can reflect this idea, they seem to be problematic.

    2. We don't understand any climatological mechanisms which span periods beyond one or two centuries. Until we have several hundred years more data on the climate (or a more fundamental understanding of how long-term climate changes happen), making predictions about the state of the climate in 100 years is not likely to be very accurate. In fact, some people predict that global warming will cause a "runaway greenhouse effect," while others predict it will change ocean currents, and eventually trigger a new ice age. There seems to be some serious disagreement on some rather basic aspects of how our climate works.

    3. I remember having a group discussion about a paper published in "Organometallics" during my first year of graduate school. The researchers wanted to predict the behavior of a certain chemical compound under conditions which were impossible to replicate using the technology available at the time. They made a computer model using seven different variables, which they "tweaked" to cause a nice tight fit with the compound's measured behavior. They used the extrapolation of this seven degree polynomial to predict the behavior under the unreproducible conditions. The professor in charge of the group asked us our opinions on the research. After we all gave our opinions, he said "This research is crap, and never should have passed the peer review stage." His reason is that with seven independant variables, you can curve fit virtually ANY set of data. Extrapolation based on calcuations with seven degrees of freedom is worthless.

    4. When I took "Modeling and Simulation" in the Computer Science department, one of the points which was drilled home is that the model is not reality. In order to understand the results of a simulation, you have to have a good enough understanding of the relationship between the model and reality that you can understand its strengths and weaknesses. We do NOT have that level of understanding of current climatological processes. A basic principle of using an empirical model is that you need to calibrate it on a set of data, then validate it on a completely independent set of data. You can't use the same data for calibration and validation. Unfortunately, with climate change, we don't have enough data to provide two seperate sets, so empirical models are destined to fail this basic principle of validation.

    Now, I'm not saying that global warming isn't going to be a serious problem. It could very well be the worst thing to ever happen to human civilization. But saying that people who question the scientific evidence are all "corpoflack "scientists" that the Republicans like to put forward as experts" is just as wrong as the people who say that there's no evidence at all.

    There is indeed evidence of global warming. But, our current understanding of long-term climate change is so basic that attempts at predicting the effects should be considered unreliable. On the other hand, just because we can't conclusively prove that it will be bad doesn't mean we shouldn't make efforts to deal with it in case it will be bad.

    congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

    by bartman on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 01:20:58 AM PDT

    •  Minor error in previous comment (none / 0)

      I can't believe I actually wrote "although I am not an ecologist," rather than "although I am not a climatologist."

      On the other hand, an understanding of ecology is also critical to understanding the carbon cycle which is the root of the entire global warming issue.

      congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

      by bartman on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 01:22:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  fair enough (none / 0)

      except that the predictions of the basic thrust of the models have held up over the last several decades, and the story and report linked above include a great deal of observation and physical measurements to bolster the trend. If anything, the actual melting of the polar ice cap is worse than the predictions.

      There can, I think, be serious disagreements over the EXTENT of the damage, but the TREND is pretty clear.

Permalink | 36 comments