Arctic Ice: Going, Going ... Gone?

Think of the earth as seen from space, and the North Polar Ice Cap pops into mind's eye as familiar as a shock of pearly, white hair on Santa's head. But if new findings from a team of North American researchers are accurate, we may not have that ice cap for much longer:

ABC News -- A team of scientists from the United States and Canada has found new evidence about the rapid melting of ice in the Arctic. Data presented at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union suggests all year-round ice could disappear by the year 2040. The scientists also believe recent research shows a tipping point which would trigger a rapid melting is fast approaching.

That much melt water spreading over parts of the the Arctic Ocean could shut down the North Atlantic Conveyor. The last time that happened, it may have sent western Europe into a brief but intense ice age marked by a notable pulse of extinction across every clade on record. In addition, this phenomenon could also signal that the permafrost ringing the Arctic Circle is melting, which would release prodigious amounts of trapped methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

In the bigger and more immediate picture, what makes the tragedy of regional war in the Middle East a potential economic catastrophe for human civilization? What is the root source of funding for Al Qaeda and Hezbollah? Why can repressive regimes such as those in Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan count on US support and complicity? Why can a select few nations play by their own arbitrary rules? All these world class headaches and many more share one key ingrediant with climate change: E-N-E-R-G-Y.

Can you imagine what the overall state of our national and global health would be right now, had the WH and GOP controlled Congress responded to 9-11 with a crash research and incentive program of energy efficient and alternative energy technologies --instead of a campaign of fear, secrecy, and endless war -- and funded it to the tune of the trillion or more dollars they pledged to death and destruction in Iraq, and tax breaks for Paris Hilton and Exxon? I'm not sure when boneheaded stupidity, raw greed, and willful ignorance cross over the line into criminal negligence, but that has to be pretty damn close.

The irony is that we live on a world seething with energy. From the red hot magma beneath our feet over which we majestically glide on rafts of stone, to the mountains of water and continents of air our sun and moon drag around the planet everyday. Even the matter which forms our material world is energy, frozen, condensed, and available for use -- with the right technology. The first nation that figures out how to tap into any of that in a big, commercially viable way, will inherit the new millennium. Those left behind will be heir to a future far less desirable.

•  Make

  no mistake: We use oil and other fossil fuels because, up to now at least, they've been the cheapest forms of transportable energy available. Also bear in mind that the hardworking men and women who man the rigs, mines, refineries, and infrastructure that delivers these essential commodities to our homes and markets often toil in some of the most inhospitable regions on earth. No, this is all our fault, collectively, and not solely attributable to oil companies or the US or one political ideology.

  The good news? It's not too late. We have the financial resources, the scientists, the engineers, the innovative entrepreneurs, and the tradition; everything but the visionary leadership needed to pull it all together. The latter is self correcting in our form of government ...

  by DarkSyde on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:49:59 AM PDT

  •  Your faith in technology

    to solve the problems associated with global climate change is probably unfounded.  I completely agree with your assessment of the severity of the problem, and I agree that tecnhological innovations can and will, with the right leadership, help address global warming.  But without major changes in our lifestyles, and without the cooperation of the rest of the world, catastrophic global climate change is probably inevitable.  Technology alone will not solve the problem.

    by Buzzdainer on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:35:06 AM PDT

    •  I should have added

      If you'd like to see an analysis by someone who has looked closely at what it will take to mitigate the effects of global climate change, check out the work of Robert Socolow.  A good summary of his work can be found in Elizabeth Kolbert's book, "Field Notes from a Catastrophe."

      by Buzzdainer on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:39:40 AM PDT

      •  I

        know of no better approach for finding solutions to the energy issue, all those socio-political matters associated with it, and perhaps even climate change, than science and technology. I can't think of any other way that might even come close -- short of knocking off 3/4 of the human population.

        by DarkSyde on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:47:46 AM PDT

        •  And even the 'solution' of knocking them off

          is a technological solution.

          by khereva on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:53:20 AM PDT

          •  Shock & Awe

            white phosphorus, genetic engineering, terminator seeds, pesticides, nanoengineering, Death Ray, LFAS...

            "knocking them off for a better future"

            by marina on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:02:17 AM PDT

        •  Non-technological

          Higher taxes on gasoline will lower consumption; tax incentives related to conservation for homes and industries will lower consumption; legislative and regulatory changes related to automobiles and CAFE standards will lower consumption; taxes on carbon emissions etc etc

          by FultonDem on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:35:48 AM PDT

        •  Yes Science & Tech, BUT...

          Science and technology will be big components of any toolbox of mitigation strategies. There are large gains to be made in increasing the efficiency of renewable sources and rethinking transmission and distribution, as well as better building and transportation technologies, etc. Lowering energy intensity (energy per dollar of GDP) and per capita consumption are good goals.

          However, two rather big elephants still sit in this room. First, although our energy intensity is about 1/2 of what it was in 1970 (I don't have the exact numbers right in front of me, so don't quote me on this), our overall energy use has increased because of population growth (i.e., more people consuming) and economic growth (i.e., each person consuming more; think computers, video games, larger TVs, gadgets, etc.) Recognizing the current paradigm of economic growth fuelled at least partially by population growth and no discussion of "stabilizing" policies such as a steady state, science and technology are at best delaying measures and not a long-term solution. In other words, we can become more efficient, but if we keep growing and growing in ways that outpaces this efficiency, problems of size are inevitable.

          The other elephant is that the huge equity issue between the global North and South (traditionally known as the developed and developing worlds) cannot be completely solved by science and technology. The atmosphere is currently at about 380 ppmv of carbon, the highest level in at least 400,000, and perhaps as many as 30 million, years. According to the National Academy of Sciences (I think, again the data is not in front of me), to stabilize the atmosphere at 450 ppmv by 2050, we need to get global per capita emissions down to 0.5 tons per person per year by 2050. to stabilize at 550, means just less than 1.0 tons per person per year.

          Currently, the world is at 1.1 tons per person per year. The U.S.? 5.2 tons of carbon per person per year! We're not even in the ball park of "sustainable." And if we're going to convince China, India, Indonesia, and a host of other nations to accept 0.5, we're going to have to make some "sacrifices" ourselves. Why would or should they ever agree to a lesser level of per capita consumption than we have? It doesn't work ethically or politically.

          Basically, we've tried to export the "American Dream" (***see below) of entrepeneurship and consumption to other nations to promote the interests of our industries (and by way of political capture, their favored politicians). Great. Just one problem: the "American Dream," as I defined it here, is not sustainable for us and impossible for the rest of the world.

          In total, I believe science and technology are vital. We should be provide more public financing and/or incentives for the development and adoption of better technologies (e.g, 2 billion dollar prize for development of a viable, sustainable community, etc.). However, sci and tech are grossly insufficient to solve what is largely a moral and ethical problem.

          Small story: I'm an environmental policy student, with a special emphasis in climate, energy, and ecological economics. At the end of our last class session for Global Environmental Problems, after hearing a summation of all the challenges facing the world, a friend leaned over and whispered, "With all these problems, what's the point? You might as well be a hedonist." And I hate to say it, she had a point. Because if we lack the political will, individually and/or collectively to really address this, then we're the elephants--to extend my analogy--are going to wreck the place. So we might as well get stomped on with a drink in our hand and a smile on our face.  On the other hand, perhaps those that are really concerned about global climate change and energy are England, circa 1940. Getting blitzed by the Germans, with no victory in sight, but fighting the good fight because it has to be fought.

          ***THE AMERICAN DREAM: I'm not implying that the American Dream is completely defined by consumption. However, that is definitely it's modern manifestation. After 9-11, Bush told us, not to sacrifice or work together, but to consume. In addition, the debate (or lack thereof) about taxes is largely about consumption.

          by magicrusslc on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:38:03 AM PDT

          •  I wish I

            had been/was an environmental policy student with a special emphasis in climate, energy and ecological problems. I love this stuff.

            PS: your friend who is trying to convince you to be a hedonist, she wants to sleep with you.

            Otherwise, great post, you ought to develop it into a diary....

            by thirtyplus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:59:23 AM PDT

    •  I agree

      See my comment below(if you so desire):-)

      by SteveLCo on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:48:34 AM PDT

    •  Electricity

      Basically, we convert much into electricity--and that's how we parcel our energy.  Also, that means of energy delivery cannot change in the near future--the infrastructure is already in place.  To change this would be damaging in and of itself.

      So, a crash program should be started on a world wide basis to find cleaner large scale electrical generation.  Parallel, we should be demanding all power plants to limit their emissions by saying no plant can emit more than 10% of the CO2 emitted by the cleanest plant.  Ongoing updating must be mandatory--and immediate.

      The internal combustion engine must meet CA standards in 3 years., and pollution free in 10.  

      These measures will be disruptive--and expensive--and might preserve the planet for our children. On a positive note, it will cause the new industrial revolution, and thus labor needs will be both brains and brawn.

       Another area of attack must be figuring an antidote for global warming.  Maybe a way to block sunlight over large areas of the poles--or to deflect it for electrical generation.  We won't be able to undo the damage by evolving to a new energy system soon enough--a temporary fix is necessary.

      by melvynny on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:12:00 AM PDT

      •  We should also "globalize" the grid...

        If all the electrical grids around the world were connected, electricity demands could follow the natural diurnal pattern, with higher energy needs following daylight use.

        For six years, the goal of the Bush Adminstration's energy policy has not been to expand oil and gas use, but, in fact, to move us almost completely to one source of energy by 2040 - coal.  I'm pretty sure I posted a chart some time ago from the DOE which clearly documented this goal.  It also showed that "sustainable resources", such as wind, solar and biofuels, actually decreased in importance.  Absolutely dumbfounding.

        by mbw on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:36:20 AM PDT

  •  Dec 13, Central New York

    I came to work today and it is 47 degrees. Over the past 5 years we have seen warmer winters than I can ever remember(I'm 45). On the global warming front I believe we are truly fucked, that train has left the station.

    I suppose we have to try to take steps to mitigate the effects, reducing carbon emissions can't be a bad thing, however maybe it's time to start crafting strategies to try to live with the effects.

    by SteveLCo on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:47:26 AM PDT

    •  The inertia

      in the system will mean big changes ahead - it's too late for some changes. Hopefully we'll respond quickly enough and prevent the truly catastrophic consequences.

      First Big Oil said it was normal, until the scientists proved it wasn't. Then they said it was minor, until the scientists proved it wasn't. Next they said it was good for us, until the scientists said it isn't. What next?

      The "Debate" on global climate change only exists in the minds of those who have an positive economic interest in the production of greenhouse gasses.

      by durrenm on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:54:43 AM PDT

      •  and no thanks to china

        • a country that is HEAVILY dependent on coal plants for energy and has an ever growing dependence on the automobile.  

        Things are not looking good from the skies above.

        by sedrunsic on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:58:13 AM PDT

        •  Just returned from Beijing

          The air quaity for the entire 11 days I was there was rated "hazardous". There are more construction cranes per square mile than I have ever seen in my life. The building goes on 24x7. The preparation for the Olympics is everywhere - how can athletes be expected to compete in air with all that pollution? Everyday my throat would be sore and eyes running just from the air. Along with all this building there are small electric plants being built to provide these newly built areas with power - my understanding was that there are small grids as opposed to large national grids. Cars everywhere - largest manufacturer - General Motors. When I asked one of the Chinese I was working with about lung cancer, etc I got an answer I didn't expect, "When you have a several billion people what's a million or two?".

          by Da Rock on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:10:22 AM PDT

          •  wow - what's a million or two

            i'd say if china does not get its act together soon, it's going to face a health epidemic of historic proportions.  i also hear the chinese are importing our love for greasy, unhealthy, fast-food.. and are now facing an obesity explosion.

            by sedrunsic on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:39:17 AM PDT

            •  They love their KFC

              KFC is the biggie there from what I could see and what they told me(although I saw most every fast food restaurant represented as well), but to tell the truth, I didn't see one overweight Chinese -- lots of overweight Americans though and many, many business people trying to glom on to the "opportunities" there. I met coal mining folks from Australia, garment people from the US, builders from Europe, IT guys from all over.

              by Da Rock on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:07:02 AM PDT

              •  yeah i have a couple buddies of mine

                who have a hedge fund that specializes in china.  from what i understand, to break-in to that market is to be positioned quite well in the next decade.  though i've been a skeptic about the opacity of business dealings there.

                i heard a story (on NPR i believe) about the line-ups at KFC.  now you provide first-hand evidence of it to be true.  ;)

                by sedrunsic on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:31:16 AM PDT

    •  That means nothing

      This might seem counterintuitive, but a warm day or winter means nothing. What's worrying is the trend.  You won't (and shouldn't) believe global warming has been solved if we get a cold snap an it suddenly drops to 10 below 0. You shouldn't be convinced by a warm day that it is occurring, either.

      The multi-year, decade on decade, century on century trend is the important thing.  And that's where it does not look good.

      I only make the point because global warming deniers use examples like this to discredit the theory.

      by nightsweat on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:46:48 AM PDT

  •  I would disagree wih this

    "We have the financial resources, the scientists, the engineers, the innovative entrepreneurs, and the tradition;"

    Really, not so much anymore.  They're in china now.

    by TJ on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:59:51 AM PDT

  •  This news was sickening to me. I read a

    wonderful book many years ago, I think it was "Artic Dreams," and the thought that it could all be lost is hard to accept. But I still have some hope.

    by Gorette on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:18:24 AM PDT

•  The line...

  ...between stupidity and criminality was crossed long ago.

  Nice post.  Terrifying, but "nice".

  by scorponic on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:53:04 AM PDT

•  Imagine what the 400 billion

  we have wasted in the Iraq could have accomplished.  Without artic ice, global warming will accelerate.  

  One other implication - Santa Claus will be fucking dead when the ice melts.  

  by DWG on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:55:48 AM PDT

  •  Every day,

    yet another reason why the Usurper should be swinging from a gibbet emerges.

    When will enough be enough?

    A daunting, thought-provoking article.

    by khereva on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:02:28 AM PDT

    •  Think of the damage

      this rogue idiot can do in 2 years unless his reign of error and terror comes to an end.  

      by DWG on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:19:00 AM PDT

      •  Yet another reason to remind our reps DAILY

        to Impeach both Chimpy and Faceshot Dick.

        Simultaneously, we need to work to start repairing the damage-- and both can be done. The Congress of 1974 did more than Impeach Nixon. We can do the same.

        Here's to saving our own biosphere's skins, in addition to saving our nation.

        by khereva on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:45:27 AM PDT

•  This is having a devastating effect

  on Polar Bear populations that could lead to extinction in this century. Here is a good article from the Center for Biological Diversity.

  by Norwegian Chef on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:02:52 AM PDT

  •  Polar Bears

    The Majestic Kings of the Arctic.

    
    

    photos from ©Thomas D. Mangelsen/ Center for Biological Diversity.

    by Norwegian Chef on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:10:55 AM PDT

  •  i read recently about researchers finding female

    polar bears fighting to the death, something that had never been seen before in females, they attribute it to them killing one another FOR FOOD due to the difficulties they are having finding it. they also pointed out that the birth rate has seen declines either for the same reasoning or the wide displacement of the males who are traveling further and further in search of food- and as we saw on an inconvenient truth, they are drowning.

    by playtonjr on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:37:28 AM PDT

•  Just like war

  This subject, which scares me shitless, is beyond sarcasm, snark, jokes, debate, or any other kind of "ice-breaking" commentary.  It is serious, imminent, and, in my opinion, the duty of every one of us to address in meaningful ways.

  Environmental costs should have been factored into micro-economic decisionmaking long ago.  This scenario makes the Dust Bowl look like a blip.

  Let's push Energy for America into the halls of Congress for public policy, and vote with our pocketbooks in the marketplace.  Are you listening, New Policymakers of DC?

  ps:  Could we have a link to Energy for America on the front page somewhere?

  by jcrit on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:10:12 AM PDT

•  George Bush's Kennedy Moment

  I've long thought that one of the most costly facets of our present malignant leadership is the lost opportunity afforded by 9/11.  Can you imagine if - a la JFK - GWB's response to 9/11 had been a committment to spent $500 billion on a determined plan to achieve energy independence?  What a stroke of strategic brilliance that would have been!  Undercutting the funding for oil-driven despotism while securing the franchise for unlimited energy?

  The tragedy grows and grows...

  by tasch on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:13:09 AM PDT

  •  He

    wouldn't be at 30% right now, that's for sure. And he would have the full cooperation of the left and the right. Not to mention the power of right-media to drive the message home, say for example Rush Limbaugh calling Hummers "bin Laden-mobiles" or Sean Hannity referring to luxury corporate jets jaunts as "Al Qaeda Express." Such a waste of life, limb, and treasure ... possibility ...

    by DarkSyde on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:15:45 AM PDT

    •  Could never happen even if Bush was smarter

      That course of action is basically antithetical to modern U.S. executive thought.  Just can't happen to someone with Bush's background.

      by TJ on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:04:05 AM PDT

  •  That is one reason why I know the man is

    seriously disturbed and perhaps very stupid. He never deserved it, but he got a huge break because of 9/11. No other president (except perhaps Reagan--who also wouldn't have deserved it) would have gotten such a break, especially a Democratic one. Bush could have governed from slightly to the right of center and he would have been seen as a surprisingly reasonably good president because of the already low expectations for  him. But he obviously doesn't think for himself at all and he has no game to play except to "act" the cowboy and deceive people in order to defraud them. And the neocons vision appealed to his grandiosity. Not one bit of wisdom or intelligence applied to any problem that we have for six years already. What a disaster.

    by lecsmith on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:09:30 AM PDT

•  Ross Ice Shelf Goes On World Tour n/t

  by PanzerMensch on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:14:14 AM PDT

•  What are YOU doing about it?

  Since seeing "An Inconvenient Truth" three months ago I have:

  ---Switched the last 8 incandescent bulbs in my house to flourescent

  ---Bought all my clothes from garage sales and second-hand stores, including the ones my kids wear

  ---Bought a bike and use it for every trip I can

  ---Gone completely vegetarian

  ---Put a blanket over my water heater

  ---Written my Congressmen, Senators, Governor, President, and each member of the Arizona Corporation Commission two times each

  ---Focussed more time on my main hobbies: reading, writing, and bodybuilding.  What can I say?  They are cheap and with my partner in Nursing School, I am poor.

  These are small changes but small changes can add up.  What are your small changes?

  by greasymadness on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:14:15 AM PDT

  •  bravo,Greasy! An Incovenient Truth should be

    required viewing, period. the melting of the polar cap is THE most poignant aspect of the entire film-the sea level would rise feet, i know my place would be under water from the rise ans while that does bother me to think about, i worry more about the billion plus who would also be flooded. and thats flooded as inthe water never recedes, forever.
     we all have to get involved, doing our part to reduce carbon is great but you touched on an even more important point- getting involved, write, make phone calls, email everyone and anyone possible in government and not only spell out your concerns, DEMAND CHANGE!
     thanks for the info darkside, as usual you're on top of things, great diary!

    by playtonjr on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:29:10 AM PDT

  •  Sold my car. n/t

    by celticshel on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:34:07 AM PDT

    •  I sold my house...

      Moved my family into a 30' trailer where we have to monitor every amp of our electric usage.  We've gone from burning 600-800 gallons of heating oil a year (we lived in a century-old house in Maine) to 40lbs of propane every four months.  Now that we're in sunnier climate (coastal California), we'll add solar panels to our high-efficiency, low-emission 2600w generator.

      Our next change is our tow vehicle (our trailer weight is 10,000lbs, so we're currently using a Suburban, one of the only vehicles which can tow it, and seat our family of six.)  Hopefully, we can land a diesel Excursion and make the modifications to run it on bio-diesel.  

      Oh, and our Christmas lights will be solar powered this year as well.

      by mbw on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:46:27 AM PDT

      •  BTW, unplugging everything not in current use...

        Can save hundreds in energy costs.  Most modern electronics still use energy, even if not on.  Battery chargers, televisions, DVD players, microwaves.  We unplug all of our appliances and electronics every night, and it makes a huge difference in the morning with our battery bank levels.

        There's a great device we bought recently which has really helped.  Called a Kill-A-Watt (bought it for $25 from Amazon) and it let's you know the true energy use of all your electronics.

        by mbw on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:50:40 AM PDT

  •  I'll be trained

    to present Al's An Inconvenient Truth in January (in Nashville by Al and The Climate Project - meanwhile, I started a company providing alternative energy systems and of course, I'm changing lightbulbs putting powerstrips on the phantom loads, adding insulation to the attic...

    If you are in Eastern MA, Southern NH, Northern RI and would like me to present for you (It's free), contact me via my profile email address...

    Mark

    by durrenm on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:49:04 AM PDT

  •  Cut my electricity bill

    by almost 20% by

    • switching bulbs
    • NEVER leaving lights on if I'm not physically in the room
    • unplugging TV, DVD Player, and computer when they are not in use (that was a biggie!)
    • minimal air conditioning during the summer
    • unplugging microwave when not in use (I don't need another clock)
    • walking to grocery store for "errand" type shopping.
    • recycling everything I can

    Now, I live in a studio apartment so the bill wasn't big to start with.

    by prodigal on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:01:11 AM PDT

•  WHAT ABOUT SANTA???

  Pontoons for the workshop?

  by N0MAN1968 on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:15:26 AM PDT

  •  Santa

    is headed to Polar Bear heaven I'm afraid.

    by DarkSyde on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:18:26 AM PDT

    •  "Jimmy, Susie, there is no Santa Clause ...

      He broke through the ice and drowned during Bush 43."

      Should make things simpler around the holidays anyway.

      by N0MAN1968 on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:09:27 AM PDT

•  DS-much has been said about rising sea levels

  but what about inland flooding?
  I recall seeing a theory that The Grand Canyon may have been created in a very short period of time, weeks if not days.  IIRC this was caused by a thaw that breeched the moraine dams that had been pushed in front of advancing glaciers, releasing billions of gallons of melt water.
  I have only seen this mentioned once several years ago.  Is anyone familiar with this subject? ...and the consequences?

  by Zwoof on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:19:19 AM PDT

  •  If you are referring to the Megaflood...

    that wasn't about the Grand Canyon, but rather the Scablands.

    by rserven on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:44:19 AM PDT

    •  Thanks rserven

      Bretz was unable to say where all the water had come from, but a colleague named Joseph Thomas Pardee was certain that the answer lay in the region around Missoula, Montana, where the surrounding mountains held evidence that an enormous lake had once filled the basin. This lake formed when a glacier plugged the valley below Missoula during the last ice age, creating a natural dam and eventually a body of water that was half the size of Lake Michigan. If that dam suddenly burst, the path of the released water would rush directly over the Scablands, scouring exactly the kinds of features that are observed there today.

      I did see the same theory applied to the Colorado River and Grand Canyon.

      by Zwoof on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:20:16 AM PDT

      •  that would likely be

        Catastrophism...which is a theory whose proponents are largely believers of the "6,000 year old Earth."

        by terrypinder on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:52:26 AM PDT

  •  Floating Ice vs. glaciers

    My understanding might be incorrect, but I think I recall that the Arctic ice mass is floating in sea water, unlike the Antarctic ice mass which is largely sitting on land.

    So I don't think that sea levels would rise at all if the entire Arctic ice mass melted, because the ice mass is already displacing as much water as it can. But if the Antarctic ice mass were to melt, that could raise the sea level a bit.

    Or if glacier packs were to melt, that could cause severe local flooding.

    None of which is good, of course. But isn't it better to work with facts as much as possible rather than scare stories?

    by Jack Lindahl on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:39:46 AM PDT

•  We need GORE

  This is why I'm desparate to get Al Gore into the White House in '08.  Although I have a sickening feeling that two more years of these criminal idiots may put us so far behind the curve that even Gore won't be able to lead us out.

  by Oy the Billybumbler on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:19:40 AM PDT

  •  Gore is needed WORLD WIDE not just in the US.

    Europe is way ahead of us, but as long as Al puts pressure on the World, and we get a global warming believer in the WH in '08 we might be able to pull it out.  Gore should travel to China - NOW!!!

    This is why I'm convinced Bush stole the elections against Gore.  Gore was supposed to have won in the "cosmic scheme of things" and we would've been on the right path of correcting many of these "wrongs".  Now we'll all pay for the evil act of a stolen election.  And Bush will not only go down in History as the worst President ever, but the person most responsible for the destruction to come.  We will prevail, but it will be a struggle.  

    by BlueMax on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:41:02 AM PDT

  •  Gore As President Would Be Distracted from GW

    Big mistake for Al Gore to run in '08. He's the world's leading spokesman on climate change. He's making a difference...globally... one of the few voices leading the pack for sanity and action on this issue.

    In the White House, he'd be distracted with a whole variety of issues and crises that would leave him with little time to devote to the most significant environmental crisis of our time.

    by susala on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:09:49 PM PDT

•  this is the implication of one degree

  When the Dennis Millers of the world tell us they turned their thermostats up one degree but didn't notice the difference, it shows their profound ignorance of just what the implications of that one degree are. There's one degree of difference between 32 and 33 degrees F. Therein lies the difference: whether polar ice remains a solid or turns to liquid. Whether glacial ice remains solid, or melts and flows into the oceans, raising sea levels even more.

  I truly do not understand this farcical denial of global warming. Is it motivated by a strong desire to maintain the status quo?

  by PanzerMensch on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:23:48 AM PDT

  •  In addition,

    each single degree can translate into several degrees near the poles. See Polar Amplification.

    by DarkSyde on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:28:45 AM PDT

    •  VERY good point

      Forgot about that.

      by PanzerMensch on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:04:28 AM PDT

•  Eritrea has a better track record

  Certainly better than the U.S. under the current administration. This small east African country plans to make its ENTIRE COASTLINE an environmental conservation project.

  http://news.yahoo.com/...

  by gnolti on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:43:58 AM PDT

•  winters are getting sparser and sparser

  up here in ski country and i fear it won't too much longer before ski areas start folding for lack of natural snow or cold enough temps to make artificial snow.  

  by sedrunsic on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:54:52 AM PDT

  •  50 degrees in Indiana

    We had a cold snap last week, but yesterday it was in the 50s here, again.  People should not be able to go around in just sweaters in mid-December in central Indiana.  

    by Yamaneko2 on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:09:52 AM PDT

•  glutony, sloth and happy idiots

  Socially we are much like the planet. The effects of our life styles can often be quickly observed by others. Most easily recognized may be the obesity problems that inflicts larger and larger numbers of American's and increasingly their children.
  Closer examinations of can determine the effects of environmental changes, like mercury and PCBs from polutants. Many people have learned to modify their lives for the better, while many don't care and continue to self destruct.
  That may be OK on a personal level, but it is not acceptable for our planet. We are all responsible for ol' blue and we need to prioritize the challenges that civilization presents. We have made the wrong choices for so long, because it easy.
  Its time to educate the world and send a message by example.
  The president's rhetorical remark 'what will historians say about us' regarding how we deal with terrorists is so shallow and self serving. What will god think of what we have done to this gem of a planet?

  by JohnB47 on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:58:09 AM PDT

•  What caused

  Europe's breif but extreme ice age last time.

  by breezeview on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:32:16 AM PDT

•  Reminds me of the Colbert quote...

  "It's like boxing a glacier.  Enjoy that metaphor by the way, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is."

  Looks like he was right.

  I wonder if Bush knows that Colbert wasn't just making a joke.

  by ivorytower on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:33:49 AM PDT

•  The Thirteenth Tipping Point

  Mother Jones has an article on global warming that scared the shit out of me when I was reading it on Monday. I was already pretty much terrified after reading that Lovelock said global warming is a given  and predicts a planetary wipeout. Combine that with the secreat Pentagon report leaked in 2004 about how global warming would mean global war by 2020 has me even more worried. That's only 13 years away folks. I guess the Bush family will be safe down in South America living on top of the largest fresh water aquifer in the world.

  http://www.motherjones.com/...

  Here are the 12 tipping points Mother Jones reports and the prognosis is not good.

  1. Amazon Rainforest

  2. North Atlantic Current

  3. Greenland Ice Sheet

  4. Ozone Hole

  5. Antarctic Circumpolar Current

  6. Sahara Desert

  7. Tibetan Plateau

  8. Asian Monsoon

  9. Methane Clathrates

  10. Salinity Valves

  11. El Nino

  12. West Antarctic Ice Sheet

  Here's the link to Lovelock's prediction that global warming cannot be avoided now and that the Earth will be able to sustain at most 500 million people.    As a reference, there are 300 million people now in the US.  That means what, between 10 and 50 million people will survie in the US?
  http://www.commondreams.org/...

  Combine that with a supressed secret Pentagon report that says climate change will destroy us. "By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war."  Folks, that's just 13 years away.
  http://observer.guardian.co.uk/...

  And this Bush family property purchase in Paraguay has been diaried before, but in terms of evading war crimes.  I think its to survive global warming.
  http://www.telam.com.ar/...

  by Thom K in LA on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:45:17 AM PDT

  •  Telam article

    Dated October 12, the article uses the conditional tense, as if to say that the news of Bush's purchase is only a rumor;  the government in Paraguay has not confirmed or denied.  

    by Yamaneko2 on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:06:46 AM PDT

  •  I can see it now

    Millions of people dying for a drink of water and the Bushies pointing to a piece of paper that says he owns this part of Paraguay, so go away.

    That'll work.

    by SecondComing on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:38:15 AM PDT

•  not all of the gubment thinks it is nothing

  Navy is asking for a whole new fleet

  thanks to 8ackgr0und N015e

  by Hey BB on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:09:27 AM PDT

•  Remember to CALL & PROTEST EPA Library closings!

  Call EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and demand that the EPA comply with the letters from both the House (pdf) and the Senate (pdf) to CEASE AND DESIST from closing EPA libraries until the new Congress has reviewed the situation.

  See the Union of Concerned Scientists explanation of the situation.

  by AceDeuceLady on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:32:34 AM PDT

•  The New Arctic Oil Rush

  TNYT had an extended series of articles a few months back on the oil rush into the newly opened Arctic.  

  This in fact will probably be the most obvious result of the icesheets melting:  more oil drilling.

  It's the beginning of the end, people.  Better git yore ass to Mars.

  rms

  by rms on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:36:08 AM PDT

•  Few Comments from An Environmentalist

  First off, the arctic ice is floating so the melting of that ice will not be the thing that shuts down the Atlantic conveyor.  Greenland ice melting may be the thing that does that.

  This is the biggest issue of the millennium.  Let's be clear about that.  The conflagration in the Middle East, as serious as it is, is peanuts compared to GW.

  It is this issue that links the Republicans in DC (and all those that support them) with absolute moral degeneracy.  If I were a fundamentalist, which I am not, I would be tempted to say that they are evil.  So I will not say that Republican leaders are evil.  I won't say that they are evil.  I won't say that they are evil.  Please help me keep me from saying that they are evil!

  by laneos on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:02:04 AM PDT

  •  Yes,

    in the long run GW is the major issue. Incidentally, it's not the sea level change which shuts off the AC, it's the influx of fresh water or water with a lower salinity, such as that which might be released by rapidly melling polar ice.

    by DarkSyde on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:09:13 AM PDT

  •  I'll say it for you: they're evil.

    I can't see what even the corporatists expect to gain from global warming denial.  It's not like it won't catch up with them, too.

    by RT on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:20:37 AM PDT

    •  They are not looking that far ahead, for one

      And given our current setup, it won't affect them or the other elites.

      by TJ on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:42:55 AM PDT

  •  Much as I hate to defend corporations

    It's not immorality.  Society defines that.  It's just greed and a short time horizon.  It's literally "Well, i can't worry about ten years from now if i get fired for missing next quarter's numbers."  

    by TJ on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:41:27 AM PDT

•  And don't forget the Disclosure Project...

  Ignore the UFO stuff and concentrate on the energy source. Cool reading! At the very least it might jumpstart your thinking.

  In the meantime, go solar. And I don't think you fully made the point of how radically destructive shutting down the Gulf Stream would be. It wouldn't "just" be Europe that becomes uninhabitable...

  by John Farr on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:06:55 AM PDT

  •  Stop with the hyperbole

    Europe wouldn't become uninhabitable.

    While climate change can have severe implication in the short term, and certainly lead to sociopolitical an economic stresses, it is not going to end life on Earth.  It doesn't even represent a serious threat to end human life.  Polar bears, yeah, they're probably toast.

    The planet is a big place and has gone through temperature variation before.  In fact since the Cambrian the fact that we have polar ice caps now is the exception rather than the rule.

    So yes, there are serious consequences to it but screaming that the world is going to end is not only unhelpful, it's demonstrably wrong which makes it trivially easy for people who know a few facts to dismiss the entire case.

    by Northwatch on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:22:49 AM PDT

•  Can't believe the U.S. isn't doing anything

  We should impeach Bush and Cheney on this ground alone, and I'm not joking.  This is the greatest threat facing not just our nation, but our world, and time is of the essence, yet our Administration isn't doing jack shit to reduce American carbon emissions.

  by RT on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:18:24 AM PDT

•  A simple (scary) bit of Physics

  Anyone who has a BS (outside of the GOP) will know the answer to this:

  If you fill a cooler full of ice, close the lid, and put it in the sun, what will the temperature in the cooler be between when the first water forms and when there is one ice cube left?

  Extra Credit:  What happens after the last ice cube melts?

  by Nineteen Kilo on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:20:20 AM PDT

  •  Answer:

    32°, constant until the last cube melts.  Then the temperature steadily rises.

    Extra-extra credit:  What is the next temperature at which the cooler will stabilize?

    The point:  The latent heat of fusion is stabilizing the earth as the ice-caps melt.  This allows the uneducated to delude themselves into thinking that no energy is being added to the system.

    by Nineteen Kilo on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:29:16 AM PDT

    •  And on to the real world...

      Given that the planet Earth is not a closed cooler and therefore lose heat, what is the final temperature?

      Why yes, I know Earth isn't exactly the same as a cooler with the lid open.  How shocking.

      (Bear in mind that without any greenhouse effect the average temperature of the Earth would be -18 Celsius.)

      by Northwatch on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:35:26 PM PDT

      •  Nice smokescreen

        I guess you can nitpick the illustration to wave your intellectual dick in the air.  Or you can call me a tinfoil hatter, or whatever else pumps your ego.  But the principle still applies.  If you are dumping heat into a system, closed or open, and the system is loaded with a heat sink that is 5 times more effective than anything else in the system, what happens when that heat sink is full and you keep dumping in more heat?

        Or, because nitpickers like you need to be very specific in order to get your digs in, let's just open the lid of the cooler.  The temperature of the water still doesn't go up until all the ice is gone.  It's just that that point comes sooner or later, depending on the air temperature and wind velocity.  I guess you will argue that the outside temperature is below freezing.  But observation does not bear this out.  On a clear night, the sun's heat is only radiated to space until the air reaches the dew point.  Then, the latent heat of vaporization takes over and the temperature stabilizes.

        You cite some very specific numbers, genius.  Care to source them?

        by Nineteen Kilo on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:32:29 PM PDT

•  The Pressure Has To Come on a Personal Level

  We can't just expect the politicians and business moguls to take the reins with climate change reversal strategies. Most are just going to cater to their own vested interests... or make superficial changes in policy or practices that look great on an annual report or in a stump speech. They need to be pressured by concerned individuals and families.

  Once all the hype of An Inconvenient Truth ebbs... will people still be concerned about the issues of global warming or will they just tunnelvision back on their lives... focused on mortgages, car payments, 401Ks, and college funds while their kids' real future goes to hell in a handbasket? I cried at the scene with the polar bears in the movie but the arctic is a long way from home. We need to put our children's faces on climate change. Or be so clever in catching their attention that people wake up and notice.  

  We can preach to the choir on lists like this but we also need to raise awareness with our neighbors and co-workers about how serious this issue is. I invite you to visit my Global Warming Is Personal family campaign. Check out the CO2 designs and my open letter to world leaders. Maybe it won't shake up the world, but it's one person's small effort to raise awareness on behalf of her grandchildren.

  by susala on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:31:55 AM PDT

•  Crazy Conservatives

  Someone over at the corner suggest building giant atolls for the polar bears.

  Wow.

  On the other hand, giant orbiting mirrors above the polar ice caps could help reflect the incoming radiation right...?

  ;)

  by MNPundit on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:35:01 AM PDT

•  matter to energy?

  "Even the matter which forms our material world is energy, frozen, condensed, and available for use -- with the right technology. The first nation that figures out how to tap into any of that in a big, commercially viable way, will inherit the new millennium."

  They've already found a way to harness that energy and it's carbon-free. They call it "nuclear".

  by edinbud on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:37:08 AM PDT

•  And the economy collapses...

  ... because Santa and his elves all drown.  Christmas is ruined, along with all the shopping and gift-giving and fake Santas at the mall...

  Tell that to a Republican and he'll suddenly understand the impact of global warming.

  by Derelict Dog on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:49:12 AM PDT

•  Democrats to solve global warming?

  I'm not an American so I missed this announcement. What's the plan and when will it be implemented?

  by edinbud on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:54:54 AM PDT

  •  Well...

    Wrote about some aspects (alternative energy) here, emphasizing the differences between Dems and Repubs.

    Will it be implemented? That's partly up to us. You and I bear part of the responisbility as does the US (and other governments) which we need to pressure to do the right thing. So let's get busy.

    by mole333 on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:03:11 PM PDT

•  Bye bye north pole

  Talk about your War On Christmas.  Sheesh.

  by some other george on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:01:21 AM PDT

•  Why does James Inahofe hate..

  Humanity?

  We are way beyond the time that we can afford colorful idiots making life or death decisions of the magnitude that they face.

  Corruption, ignorance, stupidity, or some misguided "faith" - It doesn't really matter.

  Allowing these people to make decisions is something akin to handing a  blindfolded five year old the joystick at 10,000 feet and settling down for a nap.

  What nation besides ours has (had?) the wherewithal to bring the world together in a fight to avoid civilization as we know its' self-destruction?

  "Heckofajob," you corporatists, you religious whack-jobs, you greedy bastards. No need to burn in hell. You can do it right here.

  If you insist on leaving..

  Please be so kind as to take your blood-money and your James Dobsons with you.

  by SecondComing on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:07:10 AM PDT

•  Grid Capacity to Charge Plug-in Vehicles

  I haven't seen this article mentioned on Dkos yet. It about how the off-peak electricity producted in the US is enough to fuel 84 percent of the country's 220 million vehicles.

  Mileage from Megawatts

  I've long been an a fan of the tree hugger car - plugin hybrid using biodiesel.

  by WuChier on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:13:00 AM PDT

•  Gore 2008!

  We are all going to die! Would you rather die from poverty, hunger, climate change or old age? It's nice to have that option but people living in developing countries don't! According to the Borgen Project, the Millennium Goals give low income nations and the people in those nations the opportunity to die of old age rather than hunger!

  by ashley18 on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:35:58 AM PDT

•  Finally! A true Northwest Passage

  Lewis and Clark would be proud.  That damn polar ice cap made it difficult to sail across the globe from the 15th to the 19th centuries.  Thank our lucky stars that not only can our aircraft take the polar route, soon cargo and passenger ships can shave much time off of trip duration.

  Progress comrades!  Progress!

  by rustydude on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:37:10 AM PDT

•  Welcome to the Eocene, people. n/t

  by ranz on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:53:36 AM PDT