GLOBAL WARMING

Past Climate Change

2009-12-15T09:32:00.000-08:00

he Earth's climate has changed throughout history. From glacial periods (or "ice ages") where ice covered significant portions of the Earth to interglacial periods where ice retreated to the poles or melted entirely - the climate has continuously changed.

Scientists have been able to piece together a picture of the Earth's climate dating back decades to millions of years ago by analyzing a number of surrogate, or "proxy," measures of climate such as ice cores, boreholes, tree rings, glacier lengths, pollen remains, and ocean sediments, and by studying changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun.

This page contains information about the causes of climate change throughout the Earth's history, the rates at which the climate has changed, as well as information about climate change during the last 2,000 years.
Causes of Change Prior to the Industrial Era (pre-1780)

Known causes, “drivers” or “forcings” of past climate change include:

* Changes in the Earth's orbit: Changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit (or eccentricity) as well as the Earth's tilt and precession affect the amount of sunlight received on the Earth's surface. These orbital processes -- which function in cycles of 100,000 (eccentricity), 41,000 (tilt), and 19,000 to 23,000 (precession) years -- are thought to be the most significant drivers of ice ages according to the theory of Mulitin Milankovitch, a Serbian mathematician (1879-1958). The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Earth Observatory offers additional information about orbital variations and the Milankovitch Theory.
* Changes in the sun's intensity: Changes occurring within (or inside) the sun can affect the intensity of the sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface. The intensity of the sunlight can cause either warming (for stronger solar intensity) or cooling (for weaker solar intensity). According to NASA research, reduced solar activity from the 1400s to the 1700s was likely a key factor in the “Little Ice Age” which resulted in a slight cooling of North America, Europe and probably other areas around the globe. (See additional discussion under The Last 2,000 Years.)
* Volcanic eruptions: Volcanoes can affect the climate because they can emit aerosols and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
o Aerosol emissions: Volcanic aerosols tend to block sunlight and contribute to short term cooling. Aerosols do not produce long-term change because they leave the atmosphere not long after they are emitted. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the eruption of the Tambora Volcano in Indonesia in 1815 lowered global temperatures by as much as 5ºF and historical accounts in New England describe 1816 as “the year without a summer.”
o Carbon dioxide emissions: Volcanoes also emit carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, which has a warming effect. For about two-thirds of the last 400 million years, geologic evidence suggests CO2 levels and temperatures were considerably higher than present. One theory is that volcanic eruptions from rapid sea floor spreading elevated CO2 concentrations, enhancing the greenhouse effect and raising temperatures. However, the evidence for this theory is not conclusive and there are alternative explanations for historic CO2 levels (NRC, 2005). While volcanoes may have raised pre-historic CO2 levels and temperatures, according to the USGS Volcano Hazards Program, human activities now emit 150 times as much CO2 as volcanoes (whose emissions are relatively modest compared to some earlier times).

These climate change “drivers” often trigger additional changes or “feedbacks” within the climate system that can amplify or dampen the climate's initial response to them (whether the response is warming or cooling). For example:

* Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations: The heating or cooling of the Earth's surface can cause changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. For example, when global temperatures become warmer, carbon dioxide is released from the oceans. When changes in the Earth's orbit trigger a warm (or interglacial) period, increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide may amplify the warming by enhancing the greenhouse effect. When temperatures become cooler, CO2 enters the ocean and contributes to additional cooling. During at least the last 650,000 years, CO2 levels have tended to track the glacial cycles (IPCC, 2007). That is, during warm interglacial periods, CO2 levels have been high and during cool glacial periods, CO2 levels have been low (see Figure 1).

This graph shows CO2 concentrations from 647,000 BC to 2006 AD, and Antarctic temperatures from 421,000 BC to 2000 AD. (Antarctic temperature is measured as the change from average conditions for the period 1850 AD to 2000 AD.) The graph shows a fairly close relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature during the period when both CO2 and temperature are available, and shows a sharp increase in CO2 concentrations during the 20th century.

Figure 1: Fluctuations in temperature (red line) and in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (yellow) over the past 649,000 years. The vertical red bar at the end is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past two centuries and before 2007. Click on thumbnail for a full-size image and references.

* Changes in ocean currents: The heating or cooling of the Earth's surface can cause changes in ocean currents. Because ocean currents play a significant role in distributing heat around the Earth, changes in these currents can bring about significant changes in climate from region to region.

Top of page
Rates of Change

Studies of the Earth's previous climate suggest periods of stability as well as periods of rapid change. Recent climate research suggests:

* Interglacial climates (such as the present) tend to be more stable than cooler, glacial climates. For example, the climate during the current and previous interglacials (known as the Holocene and Eemian interglacials) has been more stable than the most recent glacial period (known as the Last Glacial Maximum). This glacial period was characterized by a long string of widespread, large and abrupt climate changes (NRC, 2002).
* Abrupt or rapid climate changes tend to frequently accompany transitions between glacial and interglacial periods (and vice versa). For example, a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere (particularly around Greenland) may have experienced warming rates of 14-28ºF over several decades during and after the most recent ice age (IPCC, 2007).

While abrupt climate changes have occurred throughout the Earth's history, human civilization arose during a period of relative climate stability.

Top of page
The Last 2,000 Years

During the last 2,000 years, the climate has been relatively stable. Scientists have identified three departures from this stability, known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly (also referred to as the Medieval Warm Period), the Little Ice Age and the Industrial Era:

* The Medieval Climate Anomaly: Between roughly 900 and 1300 AD, evidence suggests Europe, Greenland and Asia experienced relative warmth. While historical accounts and other evidence document the warmth that occurred in some regions, the geographical extent, magnitude and timing of the warmth during this period is uncertain (NRC, 2006). The American West experienced very dry conditions around this time.
* The Little Ice Age: A wide variety of evidence supports the global existence of a "Little Ice Age" (this was not a true "ice age" since major ice sheets did not develop) between about 1500 and 1850 (NRC, 2006). Average temperatures were possibly up to 2ºF colder than today, but varied by region.
* The Industrial Era: An additional warm period has emerged in the last 100 years, coinciding with substantially increasing emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities (see Recent Climate Change for more information).

Prior to the Industrial Era, the Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age had defined the upper and lower boundaries of the climate's recent natural variability and are a reflection of changes in climate drivers (the sun's variability and volcanic activity) and the climate's internal variability (referring to random changes in the circulation of the atmosphere and oceans).

The issue of whether the temperature rise of last 100 years crossed over the warm limit of the boundary defined by the Medieval Climate Anomaly has been a controversial topic in the science community. The National Academy of Sciences recently completed a study to assess the efforts to reconstruct temperatures of the past one to two millennia (see Figure 2) and place the Earth's current warming in historical context (NRC, 2006).
Figure 2. This graph provides reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere average or global average surface temperature variations over the last 1,100 years from six research teams, along with the instrumental record of global average surface temperature. Overall, the curves show a warming around 1000 AD followed by a long general cooling trend that continues until the early 1900s. Each curve illustrates a somewhat different history of temperature changes, with a range of uncertainties that tend to increase backward in time.

Figure 2: Reconstructions of (Northern Hemisphere average or global average) surface temperature variations from six research teams (in different color shades) along with the instrumental record of global average surface temperature (in black). Each curve illustrates a somewhat different history of temperature changes, with a range of uncertainties that tend to increase backward in time (as indicated by the shading). Reference: NRC, 2006. (Figure reprinted with permission from Surface Temperature Reconstructions© (2006) by the National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press Exit EPA Disclaimer, Washington, D.C.)

According to the study Exit EPA Disclaimer (NRC, 2006):

* There is a high level of confidence that the global average temperature during the last few decades was warmer than any comparable period during the last 400 years.
* Present evidence suggests that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. However, uncertainties associated with this statement increase substantially backward in time.
* Very little confidence can be assigned to estimates of hemisphere average or global average temperature prior to A.D. 900 due to limited data coverage and challenges in analyzing older data.

Top of page
References

* IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Exit EPA DisclaimerContribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning (eds.)].
* National Research Council (NRC), 2002: Abrupt Climate Change, Inevitable Surprises. Exit EPA Disclaimer National Academy Press, Washington, DC. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
* National Research Council (NRC), 2005: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change. Exit EPA Disclaimer National Academy Press, Washington, DC. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

Will Big Business Save the Earth?

2009-12-08T07:18:00.000-08:00

HERE is a widespread view, particularly among environmentalists and liberals, that big businesses are environmentally destructive, greedy, evil and driven by short-term profits. I know — because I used to share that view.

But today I have more nuanced feelings. Over the years I’ve joined the boards of two environmental groups, the World Wildlife Fund and Conservation International, serving alongside many business executives.

As part of my board work, I have been asked to assess the environments in oil fields, and have had frank discussions with oil company employees at all levels. I’ve also worked with executives of mining, retail, logging and financial services companies. I’ve discovered that while some businesses are indeed as destructive as many suspect, others are among the world’s strongest positive forces for environmental sustainability.

The embrace of environmental concerns by chief executives has accelerated recently for several reasons. Lower consumption of environmental resources saves money in the short run. Maintaining sustainable resource levels and not polluting saves money in the long run. And a clean image — one attained by, say, avoiding oil spills and other environmental disasters — reduces criticism from employees, consumers and government.

What’s my evidence for this? Here are a few examples involving three corporations — Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola and Chevron — that many critics of business love to hate, in my opinion, unjustly.

Let’s start with Wal-Mart. Obviously, a business can save money by finding ways to spend less while maintaining sales. This is what Wal-Mart did with fuel costs, which the company reduced by $26 million per year simply by changing the way it managed its enormous truck fleet. Instead of running a truck’s engine all night to heat or cool the cab during mandatory 10-hour rest stops, the company installed small auxiliary power units to do the job. In addition to lowering fuel costs, the move eliminated the carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to taking 18,300 passenger vehicles off the road.

Wal-Mart is also working to double the fuel efficiency of its truck fleet by 2015, thereby saving more than $200 million a year at the pump. Among the efficient prototypes now being tested are trucks that burn biofuels generated from waste grease at Wal-Mart’s delis. Similarly, as the country’s biggest private user of electricity, Wal-Mart is saving money by decreasing store energy use.

Another Wal-Mart example involves lowering costs associated with packaging materials. Wal-Mart now sells only concentrated liquid laundry detergents in North America, which has reduced the size of packaging by up to 50 percent. Wal-Mart stores also have machines called bailers that recycle plastics that once would have been discarded. Wal-Mart’s eventual goal is to end up with no packaging waste.

One last Wal-Mart example shows how a company can save money in the long run by buying from sustainably managed sources. Because most wild fisheries are managed unsustainably, prices for Chilean sea bass and Atlantic tuna have been soaring. To my pleasant astonishment, in 2006 Wal-Mart decided to switch, within five years, all its purchases of wild-caught seafood to fisheries certified as sustainable.

Coca-Cola’s problems are different from Wal-Mart’s in that they are largely long-term. The key ingredient in Coke products is water. The company produces its beverages in about 200 countries through local franchises, all of which require a reliable local supply of clean fresh water.

But water supplies are under severe pressure around the world, with most already allocated for human use. The little remaining unallocated fresh water is in remote areas unsuitable for beverage factories, like Arctic Russia and northwestern Australia.

Coca-Cola can’t meet its water needs just by desalinizing seawater, because that requires energy, which is also increasingly expensive. Global climate change is making water scarcer, especially in the densely populated temperate-zone countries, like the United States, that are Coca-Cola’s main customers. Most competing water use around the world is for agriculture, which presents sustainability problems of its own.

GLOBAL WARMING

2009-11-26T11:32:00.000-08:00

Global climate change impacts in the United States are spelled out with renewed authority in a report released June 16 by the federal government.

The report's key information has been well reported here and in Earth Under Fire and other books, but bears repeating in its straightforward language and up-to-date numbers.

Human activities have led to large increases in heat-trapping gases over the past century. The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to this human-induced increase. Global average temperature and sea level have increased, and precipitation patterns have changed.

Human “fingerprints” also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, plant and animal health and location, and Arctic sea ice.

In the U.S., the amount of rain falling in the heaviest downpours has increased approximately 20 percent on average in the past century.

Many types of extreme weather events, such as heat waves and regional droughts, have become more frequent and intense during the past 40 to 50 years. The destructive energy of Atlantic hurricanes has increased... In the eastern Pacific, the strongest hurricanes have become stronger since the 1980s, even while the total number of storms has decreased.

Sea level has risen along most of the U.S. coast over the last 50 years, and will rise more in the future. Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly and this is very likely to continue. Global temperatures are projected to continue to rise over this century.

Whether by 2-3 degrees F or more than 11 degrees depends on a number of factors, including the amount of heat-trapping gas emissions humans continue to allow and how sensitive the climate is to those emissions. Lower emissions of heat-trapping gases will delay the appearance of climate change impacts and
lessen their magnitude.

Unless the rate of emissions is substantially reduced, impacts are expected to become increasingly severe for more people and places.

For more from this report, please go to the Temperate Zone page.

Obama's Climate Team Moves to Regulate Greenhouse Gases as Research Shows Global Warming Continues at High Rates

President Barack Obama's new Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson has moved to put CO2 and other greenhouse gases under regulation by the Clean Air Act. In one of the most anticipated early actions by the new Administration, the EPA issued a proposed finding on April 17 that these gases endanger human health and well-being. When made final, this will clear the way for regulation of vehicle exhaust, which is the source of about 30 percent of US carbon dioxide emissions.

This is one of the most visible of the climate actions springing from members of the President's new Cabinet, which includes leading scientists and informed diplomats. As they took their posts, working scientists announced in two international meetings that many factors in rapid global warming were getting worse or running at rates which only a few years ago were thought to be extreme.

Besides Jackson, who an was an experienced state environment leader before taking over at EPA, Obama appointed former EPA head Carol Browner to a new post of White House climate and energy chief; Nobel Prize winner Stephen Chu as Secretary of Energy; Harvard professor John Holdren, who has been outspoken on the dangers of climate disruption, as Presidential science advisor; and acclaimed ocean scientist Jane Lubchenco as head of NOAA.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton replaced George Bush's footdragging international climate negotiators with a team lead by Todd Stern. One of his first actions was to announce to international climate talks in Bonn that "the science is clear, and the threat is real. The facts on the ground are outstripping the worst case scenarios. The costs of inaction-or inadequate actions-are unacceptable." The Bonn talks are preliminary to crucial UN Climate Convention meetings in Copenhagen in December [[link: http://unfccc.int/2860.php]], at which nations have promised to agree to sharp limits on greenhouse gases, replacing the Kyoto Protocol. Many national issues and roadblocks remain, however, prime of which is the world recession which dominates other international meetings.

The EPA finding, although initially focused directly on vehicle emissions, will lead under the Clean Air Act to regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, source of nearly half of American CO2. Congress is also proposing control of emissions using a cap and trade process familiar to many from previous Clean Air Act procedures to limit sulphur pollution from coal burning plants. A comprehensive climate and energy bill, drafted by Rep. Henry Waxman of California and Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, will be debated in the House this spring. Reactions to the proposed legislation are being posted by many business and environmental groups and will surely intensify as the bill is amended and moves toward a vote later this year.

The urgency of climate action is even greater now because some recent observations are at or beyond the highest projections of previous reports. Scientific studies updating the IPCC assessment of 2007 show that more CO2 is being put into the air than ever before. Rates of change of global mean temperature, sea level rise, ice sheet changes in Greenland and the edges of Antarctica, and ocean chemical changes are running at the highest projections of the 2007 IPCC. In February 2009 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dr. Chris Field of the Carnegie Institute also reported that some major ways that the earth naturally absorbs CO2 were less efficient now, leaving more of the gas in the air. I heard him say that because of all this, we are "on a trajectory of climate... that has not been explored."

Not every indication of climate is changing this rapidly, but most scientists now predict a 5 degree F or more temperature increase and at least three feet of sea level rise before 2100 if things continue in this way. The changes documented in these website pages and my book occurred during a time of just over one degree of warming.

Every citizen of the world needs to be aware of rapid climate change:

1. Understand the problem, its causes and threats.
2. Let your leaders know the facts and that you expect them to act.
3. Do something today to reduce greenhouse gas output -- please Take Action

The World View of Global Warming project is documenting this change through science photography from the Arctic to Antarctica, from glaciers to the oceans, across all climate zones. Rapid climate change and its effects is fast becoming one of the prime events of the 21st century. It is real and it is accelerating across the globe. As the effects of this change combine with overpopulation and weather crises, climate disruptions will affect more people than does war

The Importance of Sound Science in Public Policy

2009-11-25T10:09:00.000-08:00

Climate scientists—and experts in related fields—will continue their research to refine our understanding of the Earth's complex atmospheric system. However, despite the advances they have made, or perhaps because of them, climate science itself is under increasing attack in some media and policy forums. Ultimately, the best way to improve public understanding of global warming issues and to create a more receptive atmosphere for policy action is for scientists to repeatedly, patiently, and strategically present accurate, credible information to the media and policymakers. UCS's Sound Science Initiative is doing just that.

Part of what scientists must do is to explain why it is unrealistic and unnecessary to expect total scientific certainty before taking appropriate action to address the threat of global warming. As climatologist Stephen Schneider notes,

"I'm not 99 percent sure, but I am 90 percent sure [that the climate is changing]. Why do we need 99 percent certainty when nothing else is that certain? If there were only a 5 percent chance the chef slipped some poison in your dessert, would you eat it?"

In the IPCC's latest assessment report (2007), the scientists drew some very strong conclusions about the present reality of climate change. The Panel concluded, for example, that human-induced warming over recent decades is already affecting many physical and biological processes on every continent. Nearly 90 percent of the 29,000 observational data series examined revealed changes consistent with the expected response to global warming, and the observed physical and biological responses have been greatest in the regions that warmed the most. Examples of observed changes in response to 20th century warming include

* Shrinking glaciers
* Thawing permafrost
* Earlier break-up of river and lake ice
* Lengthening of mid- to high-latitude growing seasons
* Poleward and altitudinal shifts of plant and animal ranges
* Declines of some animal and plant populations
* Earlier tree flowering, insect emergence and egg-laying in birds.

Once we observe the more dramatic changes in response to climate change, by definition, it will be too late to take precautionary measures. And it may even be too late for the most cost-effective remedial measures.

The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report has made it clear that there are a variety of strategies available today that, if implemented quickly, can rein in global warming and avoid the most severe consequences. The impact of the more ambitious of these strategies on the world economy is expected to be a fraction of a percent reduction in the annual average growth rate of global gross domestic product (GDP).

We also need strategies to cope with those consequences of global warming that are already unavoidable due to past emissions. Adaptation strategies are necessary to supplement climate change mitigation efforts.

While IPCC reports are not policy-prescriptive, the analysis they provide is highly policy-relevant. IPCC reports are strong evidence that scientists' voices can make a difference in the public debate and in public policy to address this global problem.

Global Warming

2009-11-24T04:18:00.000-08:00

Easier - The surface of the earth has been warming, the average temperature increasing, for several years. People studying this do not agree on the cause of the warming trend. Some say that man has caused the change; others claim that it is a natural trend.

Harder - For several years believers and skeptics have argued about the causes of global warming. The problem is complicated because believers warn that man-made causes if left to advance too far may be irreversible. Reduction of the rainforests, continued growth in hydrocarbon industries, increases in livestock, and depletion of the ozone are all considered factors in the debate. Skeptics maintain that the climate change is a natural phenomenon, that man's effect on nature is largely overrated. The fact is that for several years, the earth's temperature is rising. The problem remains in deciding what if anything we can do about it.

Earth on Fire (NASA Classroom of the Future™)

http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/carbon/earthfire.html
Are our industrial and agricultural practices changing Earth's climate? You'll examine humankind's impact on the global environment as well as Earth's past in an attempt to answer this important question.

Global Warming at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/
This site presents information on the very broad issue of climate change and global warming.
Similar Websites:
2) Global Warming/Climate Change Theme Page at Community Learning Network
http://www.cln.org/themes/global_warming.html
3) Global Warming at Environmental Defense http://www.edf.org/programs/GRAP/
4) Global Warming Central at Pace University
http://www.law.pace.edu/env/energy/globalwarming.html

Global Warming at Skepticism.Net

http://www.skepticism.net/global_warming/index.html
If some environmentalists are to be believed, we are on the verge of massive global climate change which will see a significant rise in sea levels, chaotic weather patterns, and catastrophic droughts all caused by small increase in global average temperature. This site provides links to resources skeptical of those sort of doomsday scenarios.

Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act: U.S. policy on global warming today

2009-11-17T11:51:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court ordered the federal government today to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars. In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars. Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion. The case is Massachusetts v. EPA, 05-1120.

Greenhouse gases, flowing into the atmosphere and oceans at an unprecedented rate, are leading to larger extreme climatic events, rising sea levels and other marked ecological changes.

The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the court agreed last year to hear its first global warming case. Business leaders are saying they are increasingly open to congressional action to reduce greenhouse gases emissions, of which carbon dioxide is the largest. Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned.

The court had three questions before it.

1. Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?
2. Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?
3. Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?

The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a "laundry list" of reasons that include foreign policy considerations. The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.

The decision also is expected to boost California's prospects for gaining EPA approval of its own program to limit tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Federal law considers the state a laboratory on environmental issues and gives California the right to seek approval of standards that are stricter than national norms.

(Source: GWIC)

Electric Cars as Barack's NEW Strategy for Transportation fuels

2009-11-17T11:45:00.000-08:00

Plug-in hybrids (and electric cars) are an essential climate strategy. The U.S. has just enacted the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 as part of the bailout of the U.S. financial system. The law provides tax credits for purchases of plug-in hybrid vehicles until less than a year after the first 250,000 are sold, worth $2,500 plus $417 for each kilowatt-hour of battery capacity over 4 kilowatt-hours, up to $7,500 for cars under 10,000 pounds (4536 kg), or more for larger vehicles.

BYD Auto is the Chinese company that last fall launched the very first mass-production plug-in hybrid in the world. It will display both its F3DM plug-in hybrid sedan, and a new E6 electric crossover vehicle. Executives will describe its lithium iron phosphate cells, and the Dual Mode plug-in hybrid system. BYD might be dismissed as just another Chinese car company (there are several dozen), except that famed investor Warren Buffet acquired a 10-percent stake in its parent company last September. The car company is a subsidiary of BYD Company Ltd., the world's second largest producer of rechargeable batteries—unlike GM, which has to buy its cells from other companies.
(GWIC-IPCC)

Clouds hang over the global-warming alarmists

2009-11-10T11:32:00.000-08:00

President Obama’s headed to Copenhagen next month to talk climate change. Al Gore’s headed toward profits that could make him the world’s first "carbon billionaire." But where’s global temperature headed?

Nowhere, it seems. The most reliable readings of the Earth’s temperature show that it peaked back in 1998. This was not widely reported in America, where the state of science reporting is dismal. But over in England, where they take that sort of thing more seriously, the British Broadcasting Corp. created quite a stir with an article headlined "What Happened to Global Warming?" In it, BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson gave a summary of the problems facing the alarmists: "For the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise."

Hudson went on to cite numerous scientists skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. But perhaps the most damning observation came from a scientist who supports the theory. Mojib Latif is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group that set the panic off with its 1996 report on global warming. According to Hudson, Latif concedes "that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years."

Hmmm. Ten to 20 years is what I would call "the near future." Didn’t a certain former vice president of the United States win a Nobel Prize by pushing a movie that told us that the melting of the polar ice would cause sea levels to rise by up to 20 feet "in the near future?"

Perhaps Al Gore was talking about a different future, one in which he gets rich off the panic he helped create. If the Senate passes that cap-and-trade bill that’s now before it, Gore stands to make a fortune through his stake in the investment firm he set up with former Goldman-Sachs exec David Blood to deal in carbon credits. So there’s a lot at stake in that Senate decision for the firm known to Wall Street wags as "Blood and Gore." There’s even more at stake for consumers whose bills would go up by billions.

As for those senators, they’ll look pretty foolish if they pass a bill to curb global warming just as we enter a cooling trend. And Donald Easterbrook warns that is a distinct possibility. Easterbrook is a professor at Western Washington University who was quoted in that BBC article. When I called him at his home outside Seattle, Easterbrook informed me that we have just experienced the third coldest October in the past 115 years. There’s probably more cold to come, he said, and the amount of carbon dioxide in the climate will have little effect on it one way or the other. The reason? Contrary to popular belief, there just isn’t that much of it in the atmosphere.

"For every 100,000 molecules of air, only 38 are carbon dioxide," Easterbrook said. The global-warming crowd likes to say that CO2 levels have risen 35 percent in the industrial era. "But 35 percent of nothing is still nothing," says Easterbrook, and the increase in CO2 has virtually no effect.

The alarmists harp on that infinitesimal increase, he says, while they ignore the most prevalent greenhouse gas of them all — water vapor. Clouds reflect sunlight back into the sky. And that is at the center of a developing dispute among scientists. Easterbrook is on the side of a Danish scientist named Henrik Svensmark. In the 1990s, Svensmark developed a theory that links cloud formation to sunspots. When the number of sunspots is low, more cosmic rays get through to the atmosphere. And these rays, Svensmark theorizes, are the primary cause of cloud formation. The clouds reflect more sunlight back into space. Earth gets colder.

This fits in nicely with Easterbrook’s specialty, which is how ocean currents affect climate. "It turns out there is a correlation between ocean cycles and sunspots," he told me. And the historical record shows many climate shifts that correspond to sunspot activity.

"There were 6,000 feet of ice here that all melted very suddenly 15,000 years ago," Easterbrook said of his neck of the woods in the Pacific Northwest. "There have been big ups and downs throughout history. How do you explain them?"

Well, if you want to control people’s lives and/or make a lot of money, you explain them the way a lot of politicians do. As for the scientists, they’re divided. Most agree that, all things being equal, it would be better for man not to alter the atmosphere at all. But that’s an entirely separate question from just what effect that alteration will have on the climate.

And the answer to that question is: Nobody’s quite certain.

Climate change for children in Mexico City museum

2009-11-08T10:19:00.000-08:00

Children in one of the world's most polluted cities are learning through a new exhibition how carbon dioxide emissions heat and transform the planet.

A giant polar bear prowling for food on a pile of city rubbish and a dead, white coral reef form part of the Climate Change exhibition in Mexico City's Papalote children's museum, which sits in the capital's Chapultepec park.

Mexico has led global efforts to combat climate change, including a worldwide Green Fund which its leaders plan to promote at a landmark summit in Copenhagen in December.

But many here are unaware of the key issues surrounding global warming, from risks of water shortages to mass migration and conflict if action is not taken fast.

"Climate change in a way is new, so now there's a very big effort, and this exhibition is part of this effort for climate change education at all levels of society," Tiahoga Ruge, an advisor on environmental education, told AFP.

Organisers aim to bring thousands of children and adults through interactive displays at the six-month show, until April 2010, to raise awareness in one of the world's top oil producers, which is battling deforestation and drought.

The exhibition, which was designed by a large group of international scientists to highlight the key issues of global warming, was first shown in the National History Museum in New York and is due to travel internationally.

It is part of growing efforts to raise the profile of climate change surrounding the December 7-18 Copenhagen meeting, which will seek to seal a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, whose obligations to cut emissions expire in 2012.

Mexico has promised to slash its carbon pollution by 50 percent before 2050, although environmental activists say it could do more to reduce fuel burning, a major source of carbon dioxide emissions.

"I think that if everyone in the country starts to think about what we're doing to our own planet, hopefully things will change," said museum visitor and schoolgirl Imelda Moreno Ramirez.

Signs From Earth: The Heat Is On

2009-10-29T11:19:00.000-07:00

Republished from the pages of National Geographic magazine
Written by Joel Achenbach, Heidi Schultz
September 2004

Global warming can seem too remote to worry about, or too uncertain—something projected by the same computer techniques that often can't get next week's weather right. On a raw winter day you might think that a few degrees of warming wouldn't be such a bad thing anyway. And no doubt about it: Warnings about climate change can sound like an environmentalist scare tactic, meant to force us out of our cars and cramp our lifestyles.
Photo: Woman with cow in field, Bangladesh
Global warming may affect livelihoods
ENLARGE
THIS ARTICLE IS FROM
National Geographic Magazine
Photo: Magazine cover
National Geographic Magazine

Limited time offer! 12 issues for the special introductory rate of $15.
ORDER NOW

Comforting thoughts, perhaps. But turn to "GeoSigns," the first chapter in our report on the changing planet. The Earth has some unsettling news.

From Alaska to the snowy peaks of the Andes the world is heating up right now, and fast. Globally, the temperature is up one degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degrees Celsius) over the past century, but some of the coldest, most remote spots have warmed much more. The results aren't pretty. Ice is melting, rivers are running dry, and coasts are eroding, threatening communities. Flora and fauna are feeling the heat too, as you'll read in "EcoSigns." These aren't projections; they are facts on the ground.

The changes are happening largely out of sight. But they shouldn't be out of mind, because they are omens of what's in store for the rest of the planet.

Wait a minute, some doubters say. Climate is notoriously fickle. A thousand years ago Europe was balmy and wine grapes grew in England; by 400 years ago the climate had turned chilly and the Thames froze repeatedly. Maybe the current warming is another natural vagary, just a passing thing?

Don't bet on it, say climate experts. Sure, the natural rhythms of climate might explain a few of the warming signs you'll read about in the following pages. But something else is driving the planet-wide fever.

For centuries we've been clearing forests and burning coal, oil, and gas, pouring carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere faster than plants and oceans can soak them up (see "The Case of the Missing Carbon," February 2004). The atmosphere's level of carbon dioxide now is higher than it has been for hundreds of thousands of years. "We're now geological agents, capable of affecting the processes that determine climate," says George Philander, a climate expert at Princeton University. In effect, we're piling extra blankets on our planet.

Human activity almost certainly drove most of the past century's warming, a landmark report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared in 2001. Global temperatures are shooting up faster than at any other time in the past thousand years. And climate models show that natural forces, such as volcanic eruptions and the slow flickers of the sun, can't explain all that warming.

As carbon dioxide continues to rise, so will the mercury—another three to ten degrees Fahrenheit (1.6 to 5.5 degrees Celsius) by the end of the century, the IPCC projects. But the warming may not be gradual. The records of ancient climate described in "TimeSigns" suggest that the planet has a sticky thermostat. Some experts fear today's temperature rise could accelerate into a devastating climate lurch. Continuing to fiddle with the global thermostat, says Philander, "is just not a wise thing to do."

Already we've pumped out enough greenhouse gases to warm the planet for many decades to come. "We have created the environment in which our children and grandchildren are going to live," says Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. We owe it to them to prepare for higher temperatures and changed weather—and to avoid compounding the damage.

It won't be easy for a world addicted to fossil fuels to limit emissions. Three years ago the United States spurned the Kyoto Protocol, citing cost. But even Kyoto would barely slow the rise in heat-trapping gases. Controlling the increase "would take 40 successful Kyotos," says Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "But we've got to do it."

The signs of warming in the following pages are striking enough, but they are just a taste of the havoc the next century could bring. Can we act in time to avert the worst of it? The Earth will tell.

Living on Thin Ice: Last Days of the Ice Hunters?

2009-10-29T11:12:00.000-07:00

Cracking the frigid air with a sealskin whip, a Greenland hunter urges his dogs across sea ice that gets thinner and less stable each year. Out here he's always found game for his family—until now. The problem: The ice is disappearing.
Photo: Sled dogs on ice
Sled dogs sense melting ice.
ENLARGE
THIS ARTICLE IS FROM
National Geographic Magazine
Photo: Magazine cover
National Geographic Magazine

Limited time offer! 12 issues for the special introductory rate of $15.
ORDER NOW

Jens Danielsen kneels on his dogsled as it bumps through the glinting ruins of a frozen sea. "Harru, harru," he calls out. "Go left, go left." "Atsuk, atsuk. Go right, go right." His voice carries a note of urgency. The 15 dogs in his team move warily, picking their way between lanes of open water and translucent sheaves of upended ice. Despite bitter cold in late March, the ice pans have shattered, making travel dangerous.

In a normal winter the ice comes to northwestern Greenland in September and stays until June. But during the past few years there have been only three or four weeks when the ice has been firm and the hunting good. "The sea ice used to be three feet (0.9 meters) thick here," Jens says. "Now it's only four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick."

As big as a bear, with a kind, boyish face and an elegant mind, Jens is a 45-year-old hunter from Qaanaaq, a village of about 650 people at latitude 77 degrees north whose brightly painted houses climb a hillside overlooking a fjord. Along with his brothers-in-law, Mamarut Kristiansen, Gedion Kristiansen, and Tobias Danielsen, who each has his own dog team and sled, he's heading toward the ice edge on Smith Sound to find walruses, as hunters have done for as long as memory. With 57 dogs to feed, as well as his extended family, he'll need to kill several walruses on this trip to bring home any meat.

Before leaving Qaanaaq, Jens had studied an ice chart faxed from the Danish Meteorological Institute. It showed vast areas of open water all the way to Siorapaluk, the northernmost indigenous village in the world. This was bad news for the hunters, who planned to travel on the "ice highway" for as long as a week. And it was a grim sign for the ecosystem as well, since it reflected the warming trend scientists call the polar amplification effect. During the past few decades temperatures have risen in Greenland by more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius)—twice the global average—and the island's massive ice sheet, almost two miles (3.2 kilometer) deep in some places, has been melting faster than at any time during the past 50 years. As the ice and snow cover melt, the Earth absorbs more heat—and sea levels rise everywhere.

Arctic biologists say that the entire ecosystem is in collapse. Without sea ice, seals can't build ledges on which to rest, eat, and bear their pups. Walruses can't find refuge on drift ice to rest and digest their meals of clams and other shellfish. Polar bears can't catch seals if there's no ice. And hunters like Jens can't travel in search of game.

"Huughuaq, huughuaq—get going, go faster!" Jens calls, encouraging his team. His sled is 13 feet (4 meters) long and 4 feet (1.2 meters) wide, pulled by 15 dogs in a fan hitch that lets them navigate the rough ice independently.

"These dogs are half wild," Jens says. "Maybe we are too. They have to be a little hungry to keep working for us, and we have to be hungry to keep going out with them."

The sled tips and tilts as the dogs scramble and bark. A fight breaks out, and Jens snaps a whip over their backs until they pick up speed. When a line in the fan hitch snags and a dog is dragged, Jens leans forward, without stopping, plucks at the tangle, and the dog's leg is released.

As we weave between stranded icebergs, Jens clamps his huge leg over mine and grabs my shoulder to keep me from falling off the sled. After one jolting bump, he raises his eyebrows to ask if I'm all right, then laughs when I nod yes. We've traveled together many times since 1996, when he first allowed me to accompany him on spring hunts for little auks, beluga whales, ringed seals, and walruses, so there's no need for words.

By the time the light fades about 11 p.m., we head toward shore and the hunters make camp on a rocky beach. Everyone's in high spirits. Where there had been open water a week earlier, now ice has congealed. Perhaps hunting will be good after all.

Dogs are unhitched and tied to notches cut in the ice. Sleds are unloaded. Two small canvas tents are put up using harpoon shafts as tent stakes. In each tent two sleds lined with reindeer skins serve as sleeping platforms. The floors are ice. An ancient Primus stove is lit. Overhead a sealskin thong is hung with sealskin boots, arctic hare socks, and a loaf of bread to be thawed. In a battered pot teetering over the flame, a spangled piece of glacier ice becomes water.

"Aurrit—walrus!" Jens sings out. "There will be many out there," Mamarut says, meaning a few miles out at the ice edge. The hunters prepare for an all-night hunt, changing out of fox-fur anoraks into ones made of lined canvas with polar bear fur at the wrists. Jens sharpens his knives as Gedion coils green harpoon lines. "We're going to the ice edge, the place where winter becomes spring," Jens says.

About midnight the fading sun is a red orb banging at the horizon. As darkness bleeds into it, the temperature plummets to minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 40 degrees Celsius). Night will be brief—in a few hours the sun will swing east again.

Harpoons in hand, the men line up single file and begin walking. Mamarut leads, Jens and the others follow, careful to place their feet into Mamarut's track. "The walruses can hear us moving over the ice, so we must make it sound like we are just one hunter," Jens whispers.

We walk for an hour in our silent Ice Age procession. These men are among the last hundred or so Greenland hunters who have chosen to keep their ancient traditions alive—traveling by dogsled, wearing skins, hunting with spears and harpoons, while taking what they want from the modern world, such as rifles. Their ancestors came to Greenland about 800 years ago, the most recent wave of peoples who migrated from Siberia beginning some 5,000 years ago.

"We hunt with harpoons, but we also use cell phones and watch TV," says Jens, who has testified before Greenland's Parliament to keep snowmobiles out of the far north. New ice—ice that has just refrozen—undulates like rubber beneath our feet. A slender channel of water appears, its crenellations catching and dropping the last of the sunlight. "The ice edge," Jens whispers. He points: "Miteq!" Two eider ducks fly out of a maze of sparkle.

Mamarut motions for us to stop. We hear gulping and sloshing: Walruses coming. They bob up and down, their ivory tusks gnawing frigid water. Mamarut breaks out of the procession, crouches, and runs ahead to the edge of the lead. We wait motionless. There's the whir of a harpoon, then a gunshot. The walrus is dead.

Harpoon lines are tied to long iron poles. A modern block and tackle is attached and the four men line up, hauling the young 800-pound (363-kilogram) male onto the ice hand over hand. Knives are resharpened. Penis and flippers are cut off. Heart and liver are laid on a tarp along with the other meat—food for both humans and dogs.

Jens walks back to camp and returns with a sled, his rolling side-to-side gait like that of a polar bear. He cuts a tangle of guts into long lengths and feeds the hungry dogs. The rest of the walrus is dismantled and stacked on the sled. Later he leans over a bloody mass on the snow—the stomach slit open—fishes around in the brown liquid with his knife, then stabs. A scallop! "Umm," he says, smiling, offering it to me. I shake my head. He pops the scallop in his mouth, chews, and swallows.

Before leaving, Mamarut lays two ribs and a pile of steaming intestines on the ice. "For nanoq," he says, the polar bear. "He is teaching us all the time. He can move on water or ice equally and hunt anything. He is worth our admiration. Without knowing the polar bear's ways, I would have died out here many times."

As the last of the meat is stacked, steaming, Jens hooks his dogs to the sled, and Mamarut stops to look skyward. "Sometimes we're lucky, and other times things go against us, and we don't get anything to eat," he says. "Our lives are based on how nature gives us animals."

March 21, the vernal equinox and our fourth day on the sea ice, a front moves in, and the temperature drops again from minus 35 to minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 37 to minus 40 degrees Celsius). "We need to go quickly before the storm hits," Jens warns. Rushing to load the sleds, the men kneel on flapping reindeer skins, pulling the lash ropes tight. The dogs are wild-eyed. The moment they feel the lines hitched to the sled, they take off. With flying leaps, the hunters barely make it aboard.

Out on the frozen sea the ice is smoother between wind-driven snowdrifts. We follow the mountainous coastline south toward the village of Moriusaq and the place the hunters call Walrus El Dorado near Appat Island, where last year they killed 13 walruses in just a few days. Ocean currents have squeezed and shattered plates of ice, and our sled comes to a halt. Stopped by the labyrinth, the dogs moan and cry. Which way do we go? Jens looks and shrugs, smiling. Then, using his enormous strength, lifts the front of the sled—freighted down by 800 pounds (363 kilograms) of meat and gear—until it points the other way. The dogs lurch forward, and Jens hops on as we bump through a narrow passage.

We travel for hours against a hard wind. It's too cold to stop and let the dogs rest, and the storm is coming in fast. Ice fog has lowered itself to the ground. We're headed for one of the wooden huts the hunters have built on the coastline for shelter during storms. A single pointed mountain protrudes through the fog. "Iviangeq!" Jens yells to Mamarut, whose sled comes alongside ours. He laughs and makes a cupping gesture to indicate a woman's breast. Ahead the roof of a tiny hut pokes from a snowdrift. The sled shudders as the dogs careen toward it onto land.

The traditional low entryway is dug out; shuttered windows are opened. Laughing, Gedion kicks the wall with his feet because there is no feeling in them. My hands are numb from the wrist forward. Two Primus stoves are lit, and Jens holds my fingers over the tiny flame.

In the old days there were no huts, no Primus stoves, and dogsleds were made from whale bones and reindeer antlers with frozen char rolled up as runners. The only heat and light was made from rendered whale and seal blubber.

Being out of food meant you were not only hungry but also cold.

We all cram into the 14-by-16-foot (4.3-by-4.9-meter) hut. Sleeping platforms line the walls. The floor is blood-encrusted from years of walrus and seal hunts. The men tend to the dogs before their own needs. The animals, tied one by one with long chains, howl with delight when they see the buckets of meat.

"Our dogs are like us, they love to eat. They're like running stomachs," Mamarut chimes in, throwing frozen chunks of walrus right into their mouths. Jens holds his big belly in his hands, grinning. He describes his 280-pound (127-kilogram) bulk as his "Eskimo bank account."

As the storm envelops us, the temperature slides to minus 60 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 51.1 degrees Celsius), but inside the hut, sitting leg to leg, we're snug. Snow covers the sleds; the dogs sleep outside with their noses under their tails. Using a thick steel needle and a thimble made of bearded sealskin, Mamarut repairs his sealskin boots with narwhal sinew thread. Jens plucks the hairs from his face with tweezers. "The hairs sticking out make your face freeze faster," he explains. He fixes a broken harpoon shaft. Our dinner is walrus heart soup, followed by slices of walrus fat to keep us warm. The windows rattle, and the blizzard comes on strong.

The next morning, the hut is quiet except for the hissing sound of the Primus and the howl of the wind. "It's important to be modest in front of the weather," Jens says, rubbing his cold-reddened cheeks. "If we go out in this, frostbite comes quickly, and you don't know it. This cold is like a bad dream, a ghost putting its hands on you."

On days like these, shamans gathered villagers around and conducted séances, rectifying the wrongs that had been committed and combing the long hair of the goddess Sassuma Arnaa to pacify her so she'd let the animals come to the hunters who needed food and skins. Now, that same kind of quiet intimacy fills our room. Some moments the men are playful—like small boys. Other times they tell hunting stories; not to boast, they say, but to learn from each other's mistakes.

The covenant between human and animals in the wild is always in mind. They hunt and are hunted. They listen and are heard. "Bears, walruses, whales, and seals are always listening to us, and we listen to them. They can understand what we are saying, and we go inside them each time we wear their skins," Jens explains.

Gedion recalls how a bearded seal almost dragged Jens through the ice. "The line cut down into his hand to the bone, and I sewed it up."

An elder took to walking between villages by going over the ice cap instead of along the shore. When he fell into a crevasse, the dogs found him; they had smelled him from miles away and led the villagers to him, saving the man's life. Searing cold, months of darkness, scarcity, and the risk of starvation are the flints on which their imaginations have been fired, triggering the intuition and intelligence—almost a second sight—still in evidence today. While the outward customs of ceremonial life have vanished, the inward ones remain.

There are long silences. We listen for bears. Tobias, who trained to be an engineer in Denmark then returned to his village to be a hunter again, recalls that this was the hut where he shot his first polar bear. "I did not know if I had killed it, and I stayed inside here all alone all night waiting for the bear to attack me. When nothing happened by morning, I knew he was dead."

Shutters bang in the wind. Everyone laughs. But when Jens begins talking, there is a reverent silence.

In an earlier era, before the Greenlanders' ceremonial life was discouraged by Scandinavian missionaries at the beginning of the 20th century, Jens might have been an angakkoq, a shaman.

His voice is low and gravelly: "When I was a boy, my father went out from the village and saw the track of a polar bear. He followed it and finally got very close. His chance to shoot came, but just then the bear turned and looked at him. It had a human face and was smiling at my father and saying, 'Take me. I'm yours!' My father just stood there. He couldn't shoot. He let the bear go. If a person has special talents, animals will come and ask to be your helper. You are only asked once by a polar bear, but my father denied it, and it ran away. He had his chance to get the powers. After that, I was afraid of having to meet that kind of polar bear.

"But not long ago it happened to me. Six of us were hunting walruses nearby, and we went up onto a hill to see if we could see the ice edge. Suddenly I started to feel as if there was a polar bear nearby. We were quite far from the dogs. I could hear it breathing. There were others with me, and they heard it too. It was very close, so close we thought we wouldn't be able to get away. We ran down the hill to get our guns. I could hear steps behind me. At the bottom the dogs were out of control. I cut the lead dogs loose, and they ran up the hill where we'd been. I followed with my gun, but there were no tracks. It was the polar bear coming for me. I still feel its spirit, mostly when the weather is changing, when a new season is on the way. Don't ask me where this comes from, but it has happened for generations." "Like now?" I ask cautiously. He only smiles.

After our three days in the hut, the storm ends. Jens peers out the window at a distant city of stranded icebergs, blunt-cut by a mirage—one of the first signs of spring. The temperature jumps from minus 60 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 51.1 degrees Celsius) to only minus 10 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 23.3 degrees Celsius). "It's hot," Jens complains, wiping his forehead. The ice is pink in morning light.

We pack the sleds and will make our way toward Walrus El Dorado. We're almost out of meat (a walrus goes fast with so many mouths to feed) and won't have any extra to bring back to Qaanaaq. A blustery wind comes up. "This will break the ice," Gedion says, matter-of-factly. As we make our way down the coast, then out into Baffin Bay, the ice is so broken and rotten we are forced to turn back before it breaks away. A sense of despair settles over the hunters.

"This changing weather is bad for us," Jens says, scowling. "Some people are having to go other ways to make a living." His wife, Ilaitsuk, who used to accompany him on these hunting trips, has had to take a job at a day care center in Qaanaaq to help pay their bills, which they both hate.

The hunters get off their sleds and talk. A decision is made: We will turn north again, then travel west to Kiatak Island, where, they say, the ice is always good. But to get there has become almost impossible. The shore ice around the headlands where we traveled the previous week is impassable. We're forced to go up and over a corner of the ice sheet. The way is steep, and a deep crevasse threatens to swallow our sleds. Lobes of translucent green ice bulge through snow. At the top we take air, flying off a cornice. Down the other side we follow a dry, narrow streambed, leaning from side to side for balance and using our feet to turn the sled. Despite the ropes laid under the runners, the sleds go too fast: Dogs slalom around boulders. We reach the bottom at midnight and are forced to go up the coast on rotting ice pans. Sometime toward morning, we make camp just inside a fjord.

The hunt for walrus has turned into a hunt for ice. We make our way west over bad ice with mist falling down the mountain cliffs. Between Kiatak and neighboring Qeqertarsuaq Island, there is no ice at all, and we must travel on the remains of an ice foot—a skirt of ice attached to the shore. Where the ice foot ends abruptly, the men belay their dogs and sled off a cliff, continuing to Kiatak on ice pans so rotten they dissolve into a layer of slush beneath the dogs' feet.

During the night, Mamarut's lead dog becomes ill. "Once they are like that they never get well," Gedion observes coolly. The next morning, before hitching up, Mamarut walks back up the hill and shoots his dog. "Now there will be a fight among my other dogs to see who will be the leader," Mamarut says, already thinking ahead.

But is there a future for these subsistence hunters of the far north? Everywhere in the Arctic, indigenous people are suffering. In Alaska the villages on the north coast are being inundated by the rising sea. In some Greenland villages last winter there was no sea ice at all. A few hunters in Qaanaaq and Moriusaq had to shoot some of their dogs because they had no meat for them.

Without sea ice, without sled dogs, without polar bears, marine mammals, and birds, traditional life in the Arctic could crumble quickly. "Once one piece of our life goes, it all goes," Jens says. "It is just like the ice. If it does not hold together, we cannot make any sense of our lives."

On the next to last day of our trip we emerge from our hut on the north side of Kiatak Island. Jens and Mamarut are boyishly cheerful, despite the disappointment of having no meat to bring home. They race each other up a steep snowfield. Because Kiatak lies farther west than any other land in Greenland, they're sure that, looking out over Baffin Bay toward Ellesmere Island, they'll see an ice edge sturdy enough to hold their dogsleds. This is where the walruses will be.

What they see astonishes them: There's no ice edge, only the glitter of open water all the way to Canada. Jens blinks, looks away to one side, then back out at the sea.

"In my whole life, and that of my father and grandfather, there has never been anything like this at this time of year. Without ice, we can't live. Without ice, we're nothing at all."

Who Let the Dogs Out?

2009-10-25T13:31:00.000-07:00

Must be the weather.

As we head toward yet another November, this one admittedly less politically momentous than the last, the nation’s two parties seem to be in presidential-campaign-style attack mode.

At Politico yesterday, Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen detailed the White House offensive.

President Obama is working systematically to marginalize the most powerful forces behind the Republican Party, setting loose top White House officials to undermine conservatives in the media, business and lobbying worlds.

With a series of private meetings and public taunts, the White House has targeted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the biggest-spending pro-business lobbying group in the country; Rush Limbaugh, the country’s most-listened-to conservative commentator; and now, with a new volley of combative rhetoric in recent days, the insurance industry, Wall Street executives and Fox News.

Obama aides are using their powerful White House platform, combined with techniques honed in the 2008 campaign, to cast some of the most powerful adversaries as out of the mainstream and their criticism as unworthy of serious discussion.

Press secretary Robert Gibbs has mocked Limbaugh from the White House press room podium. White House aides limited access to the Chamber and made top adviser Valerie Jarrett available to reporters to disparage the group. Everyone from White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has piled on Fox News by contending it’s not a legitimate news operation.

(See Eric Etheridge’s Monday Opinionator column for more on the White House and Fox News.)

That’s an impressive-sounding search-and-destroy mission and it is bound to have some impact, but like Terminators who keep reassembling and coming at you right after you could have sworn you’d blown them to bits, two noteworthy Republicans materialized to fire volleys at the president and his policies.

On Wednesday night, Dick Cheney, accepting a “Keeper of the Flame Award” from the Center for Security Policy, gave a speech that was a essentially a point-by-point attack on everything Obama, from the withdrawal of missiles from Eastern Europe to his record on the issue of the day, Afghanistan. In a speech chock full of characteristically inflammatory rhetoric (“We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security, and turning the guns on our own guys,” was a morning-after favorite), Cheney described the White House as “dithering” on the war.

Well, that did it.

Robert Gibbs, the White House Press secretary countered today: “What Vice President Cheney calls dithering, President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform. I think we’ve all seen what happens when somebody doesn’t take that responsibility seriously.”

Gibbs drew much attention today for his snarky responses to Cheney’s speech, giving the heretofore unfathomable impression that someone was picking on Dick Cheney.

2009-10-25T12:40:00.000-07:00

Weekend Opinionator: Are Americans Cooling on Global Warming?
By Tobin Harshaw

Americans are worried about global warming. We know this for many reasons. We know it because “An Inconvenient Truth” won an Oscar; because Al Gore’s popularity has soared since he left the vice presidency; because the House and Senate are working feverishly on laws to limit greenhouse-gas emissions; and mostly because there are so many books from skeptics accusing environmentalists of having completely snookered the American public.

Democrats begin a push on cap-and-trade laws just as a new poll shows a sharp decline in fears of rising temperatures.

Need more proof? Take it from the very top — President Obama, Friday at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: “There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy — when it’s the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs. There are going to be those who cynically claim — make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary.”

What about them? “We are seeing a convergence. The naysayers, the folks who would pretend that this is not an issue, they are being marginalized.”

Hmmm, for people being marginalized by a consensus, there suddenly seem to be a whole lot of them, at least according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:

There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem – 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008 …

Over the same period, there has been a comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.

The decline in the belief in solid evidence of global warming has come across the political spectrum, but has been particularly pronounced among independents. Just 53% of independents now see solid evidence of global warming, compared with 75% who did so in April 2008. Republicans, who already were highly skeptical of the evidence of global warming, have become even more so: just 35% of Republicans now see solid evidence of rising global temperatures, down from 49% in 2008 and 62% in 2007. Fewer Democrats also express this view – 75% today compared with 83% last year.

Cue the rejoicing on the right. Here’s John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

That 36 percent is pretty remarkable, given the massive propaganda effort that has been mounted over a period of decades by the big-government side. It suggests that the public is becoming more knowledgeable about climate science …

A rational citizen, confronted with the current economy and the Democrats’ plan to impoverish us all with a multi-trillion-dollar tax on energy, would take a hard look at the evidence to see whether anthropogenic global warming is a) a reality, or b) a hoax ginned up to justify a massive federal government takeover of the economy that will shift trillions of dollars from ordinary citizens to the federal coffers and to companies and organizations with close ties to the Democratic Party. A lot of rational citizens are concluding that the right answer is b).

Still, there are plenty of grievances, and for Hinderaker they stem from something Andrew Weaver, a professor of climate analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, said to Dina Cappiello of the Associated Press: “It’s a combination of poor communication by scientists, a lousy summer in the Eastern United States, people mixing up weather and climate and a full-court press by public relations firms and lobby groups trying to instill a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the public.”

“Actually,” responds Hinderaker, the ‘lobby groups’ are nearly all on the other side. I’ve seen no reliable statistics, but would guess that more than 90 percent of the money in the global warming game is pro-AGW. The federal government alone has parceled out billions of dollars to “scientists” who are willing to toe the party line. Add to that the public schools, virtually every newspaper, all of the television networks and the Associated Press, and it is something of a miracle that so many Americans have been able to figure out that they are being lied to. It’s almost enough to restore your faith in democracy.”

Vox Day, the blogger at Vox Popoli, anticipates the left-wing response:

Brainwashing and appeals to scientific authority only go so far when Joe Public’s car is buried by snow in early October. No doubt the true believing scientific community will respond with calm reason and logical persuasion, by which of course I mean that we can look forward to the usual suspects shrieking about how stupid everyone is for daring to think for themselves and wistfully dreaming of PhDoctocracy.

“Not everything in the poll is bad news for those that favor capping U.S. emissions,” notes The Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Power. He explains:

According to the survey, a majority (56%) of Americans think the United States should join other countries in setting standards to address global climate change, while 32% say that the United States should set its own standards. And half of Americans favor setting limits on carbon emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, even if this may lead to higher energy prices.

On the other hand, more than half (55%) say they haven’t heard about so-called “cap and trade” legislation being considered in Congress. (Then again, Sen. John Kerry says he doesn’t know what “cap and trade” means, either.)

This paradox leads Meredith Jessup at TownHall to accuse Republicans of failing to take advantage of the shifting public attitudes:

With all this growing skepticism about global warming, you’d think support for cap-and-trade would drop. Not on Capitol Hill!

And despite the number of Americans who doubt the influence of global warming, for some reason half of the country still favors setting limits on carbon emissions, even though it will result in drastically higher energy prices. This phenomenon seems to be due to lack of knowledge of the issue:

Just 14% say they have heard a lot about the so-called “cap and trade” policy that would set carbon dioxide emissions limits; another 30% say they have heard a little about the policy, while a majority (55%) has heard nothing at all. The small minority that has heard a lot about the issue opposes carbon emissions limits by two-to-one (64% to 32%).

Hopefully the RNC reads these numbers and takes away this important lesson: knowledge is power when it comes to cap-and-trade.

Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, whose writing often incurs the wrath of environmentalists, thinks there is a clear political message here for environmentalists:

Remarkably, only liberal Democrats have shown an increase in concern on the issue, as shown below. meanwhile, it has become of diminishing seriousness for just about every other group of Democrats. What this means is that continued efforts to intensify concern over global warming could have the effect of turning this issue into a being perceived solely as a liberal cause (more so than it is already perceived to be) and alienate the rest of the voting populace, the vast majority of which do not consider themselves to be liberal Democrats.

One reason to stop focusing on what people think about the science of climate change is that a majority of the public supports action on emissions (shown below) and well as international cooperation on climate change (not shown). The policy challenge is thus to design policies that can be effective given the strong political support that has existed on this topic for some time. The realities are that support is about as strong as it is likely to be, and really hasn’t changed much over a decade or longer. Efforts to make climate change a top line issue will inevitably backfire. For some these facts may be frustrationg, but they are the reality of the issue.

Matthew Yglesias at Think Progress feels that Pew erred in saying the decline is “across party lines.” “But you should look at the magnitudes,” he explains, “the Republican line has fallen way further, and from a lower base, than the Democratic line. This is probably a rationalizing voter example where increased salience of the issue is bringing more Republicans into line with the beliefs espoused by their party’s leaders.”

Yglesias also takes issue with this comment form Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma: The more Americans learn about cap-and-trade, the more they oppose cap-and-trade. And this explains quite clearly why Democrats don’t want the public to know about it.” The blogger’s reply: “These are curious uses of the terms “know” and “learn” which are generally reserved for instances in which people form true beliefs. On the specific issue of cap and trade, the evidence has always been that the term “cap and trade” is barely in circulation outside the Beltway. Public support for clean energy legislation under different descriptions tends to be high. You can get poll results as good at 72 percent in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act under one favorable description.”

Cappiello, the Associated Press writer, also talked to a global-warming die-hard who seems to think denial is the appropriate response:

Since 1997, the percentage of Americans that believe the Earth is heating up has remained constant — at around 80 percent — in polling done by Jon Krosnick of Stanford University. Krosnick, who has been conducting surveys on attitudes about global warming since 1993 was surprised by the Pew results.

He described the decline in the Pew results as “implausible,” saying there is nothing that could have caused it.

Well, plausible or not, it can hardly be said that the new study is a total outlier — consider this conversation with Gallup’s Frank Newport that U.S. News’s Paul Bedard recounted in May:

He admits that it’s counterintuitive, but Gallup Poll Editor Frank Newport says he sees no evidence that Al Gore’s campaign against global warming is winning. “It’s just not caught on,” says Newport. “They have failed.” Or, more bluntly: “Any measure that we look at shows Al Gore’s losing at the moment. The public is just not that concerned.” What the public is worried about: the economy. Newport says the economy trumps the environment right now, a strong indicator that President Obama’s bid to put a cap-and-trade pollution regime into operation isn’t likely to be politically popular.

That’s not to say people aren’t passionate about the issue. But it’s the direction of their passion that will disappoint Gore. Newport says that some 41 percent believe global warming claims are exaggerated, and “that’s the highest we’ve seen.” Ask people to name their biggest concerns, and just 1 percent to 2 percent cite the environment. “The environment doesn’t show up at all,” says Newport.

“It’s Al Gore’s greatest frustration,” says Newport. “We seem less concerned than more about global warming over the years. . . . Despite the movies and publicity and all that, we’re just not seeing it take off with the American public. And that was occurring even before the latest economic recession.”

He adds: “As Al Gore I think would say, the greatest challenge facing humanity . . . has failed to show up in our data.”

Jim Hoggan of desmogblog.com is pretty sure that the sheep are being led astray by the usual big-money suspects:

As I explained to the Guardian newspaper today, “a big part of this problem is this campaign to mislead Americans about climate science. This is a very sophisticated group of people who know how to create doubt and confusion and they have done a very good job of it.”
This downturn in public understanding of the climate crisis confirms that the corporate investment in climate confusion is paying a dividend. The public confusion campaigns launched by ACCCE, the Chamber, National Association of Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute and a host of others, are all deliberately targeted at moving the dial on public opinion.

These Astroturf groups have set a clear and specific goal of muddying the waters, and this poll shows that their strategy is working. Front groups and lobbyists for dirty industry have effectively sown the seeds of confusion within the American public.

Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, the pleadings of nation’s like the Maldives and villages in the Arctic which are literally being wiped off the map by rising sea levels, and siren calls from the international community for action to address climate change, Americans are still questioning whether it is real or not.

Shocking, isn’t it? Not if you know what the industry lobbyists and front groups have been up to for the past 20 years.

Tom Yulsman at the Center for Environmental Journalism’s blog looks at the numbers a bit more closely and doesn’t like what he sees:

In the Pew poll, 85 percent of people said they had heard only a little or nothing at all about the cap-and-trade policy now being considered in Congress to tackle global warming. And in what may be an ominous development for Democrats pushing cap-and-trade plans in Congress, it seems that public support for the policy seems to be built on extremely shaky ground. That support is actually correlated with lack of knowledge about the policy’s details, with more than 50 percent of those who know little or nothing about them saying they favor a cap on emissions of greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, the small minority of people who have heard a lot about capping emissions actually oppose the policy by a two-to-one margin.

This can mean a number of things. One possibility is that those most inclined to dislike government action on global warming are the ones most likely to have sought out details about cap-and-trade. Another is simply that the more Americans know about the policy, the less they like it.

Or, as Truthdig’s PZS would have it, perhaps it means that Americans are simply idiots:

In just three short years, Americans have gotten 20 points dumber. That’s if you count a belief in the climate crisis, and the mounting science behind it, as a sign of brains.

Blame the people who popularized global warming as a phrase. The ice caps may be melting and half of California has been on fire, but if it’s a relatively cool summer, everyone’s a skeptic.

To be fair to the land of the free and home of the creationists, most of us still believe there’s “solid evidence that the earth is warming,” but that number was much higher, 77 percent, in 2006. Whatever you’re doing, Al Gore, it isn’t working. Step on it.

Well, it sounds like PZA would be right at home “PhDoctocracy” posited by Vox Day.

For those of us in the real world, however, it seems like talk may soon turn into action (or inaction). Beyond the Obama speech, here are some signs that we aren’t so befuddled by the economy as to have forgotten the climate:
the impending release of the Senate’s newest version of its climate bill, on which the Environment and Public Works committee is to hold hearings next week; the Environmental Protection Agency’s new report on the cost of such legislation; the decision by Creigh Deeds, the struggling Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, to dump cap-and-trade; and the fact that Ed Markey, the House Democrat leading the charge for the legislation, is off to Copenhagen to lay the groundwork for the international summit meeting in December. Not that this issue, 4.5 billion years in the making, is going to be resolved overnight, but it would seem to be time for that majority of Americans who responded that they knew “nothing” about cap-and-trade to think about picking a side.

Note: Those who know and love the blogosphere well are probably aware that there were two major Web brouhahas this week involving global warming claims; as both involved parties affiliated with The Times, I chose not to discuss them, as to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. If however, you want to catch up, one involved Rush Limbaugh (him again) and Times reporter Andrew C. Revkin (see here and here); the other pitted Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner of my sister blog Freakonomics against enviro-blogger Joe Romm, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the economist J. Bradford DeLong (see here and here and here and here and here).

There's no denying global warming, center says

2009-10-15T10:36:00.000-07:00

When Dow Constantine's campaign called the Washington Policy Center's environmental arm, the Center for the Environment, global warming "deniers" the group was upset I didn't contact them for comment.

Fair point.

Todd Myers, the WPC's environmental director, said contrary to what Constantine's campaign said his organization "believes global warming is happening, people are having an influence and that carbon dioxide emissions" are the cause.

"We don't agree with some of the alarmists with how much that is going to go up," Myers said.

Myers said his organization wants to cut taxes elsewhere but to increase taxes on carbon as a way to reduce emissions.

"(The Constantine campaign) either ignored or didn't read the chapter that said we think there should be a carbon tax," Myers said.

Myers pointed to a speech he gave last week at which he outlined his position (a question about global warming starts at 1:24:00).

Global Warming is a National Security Issue

2009-10-15T10:21:00.000-07:00

Congress is currently debating legislation that would finally begin to address climate change and spark a paradigm shift toward clean energy for our nation. There are lots of good reasons to pass this bill: reducing global warming pollution, exerting international leadership on the issue, boosting the economy with nearly million new "green" jobs, breaking our addiction to oil and other dirty fossil fuels. One of the most important reasons for acting now has to do with bolstering our nation's security. This story by inside-the-Beltway publication Politico makes the point:

"[F]or nearly two years, military and intelligence experts have been issuing studies warning that climate change could put American military personnel and national security at risk. Increasingly violent storms, pandemics, drought and large-scale refugee problems, they say, will destabilize regions and encourage terrorism. And American dependence on foreign energy sources will only exacerbate the threats and increase the likelihood of military action."

That's a big reason why Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), both military veterans, are working together to pass a climate and clean energy bill in the Senate. (This development is a game-changer, notes my colleague Dan Lashof.)

This also explains why national security experts and military veterans of all political stripes are banding together to ensure that Congress follows through on the mission. Right now, in fact, a squad of vets is on the road, traversing the country on a 21-state, biodiesel-fueled bus tour -- they are stopping in cities and towns all over America to explain to people how our national security is tied to tackling the climate crisis.

Learn more about the Veterans for American Power Tour on this website, which tracks both buses as they roll through various states over the next two weeks.

The coalition behind this campaign, which includes Operation Free, the Truman National Security Project, and VoteVets, is also promoting the cause through a radio ad blitz in several states. The ads feature veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan calling for an "American clean energy policy" and urging Senators to be "heroes" by supporting climate legislation. The tag-line: "It's not just a question of American energy; it's a question of American power."

Proposed Rulemaking: Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards

2009-10-12T21:14:00.000-07:00

On September 15, 2009, EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed an historic National Program that would dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States.

The combined EPA and NHTSA standards that make up this proposed National Program would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (MPG) if the automobile industry were to meet this carbon dioxide level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these proposed standards would cut carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 950 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012-2016).

Under this proposed National Program, automobile manufacturers would be able to build a single light-duty national fleet that satisfies all requirements under both the National Program and the standards of California and other states, while ensuring that consumers still have a full range of vehicle choices.

This proposal is the result of the President’s May 2009 announcement of a national program to reduce greenhouse gases and improve fuel economy.

Massive Earthquake in Padang Indonesia

2009-10-09T18:59:00.000-07:00

A major earthquake struck off the city of Padang on the coast of Indonesia’s Sumatra island on Wednesday, damaging houses, bringing down bridges and starting fires, a witness said. It was unclear if there were any casualties.

The 7.6 magnitude quake was felt around the region, with some high-rise buildings in the city state of Singapore, 275 miles (440 km) to the northeast, evacuating their staff. Office buildings also shook in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur.

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre cancelled an earlier tsunami warning. Japan said no tsunami was expected there.

“Hundreds of houses have been damaged along the road. There are some fires, bridges are cut and there is extreme panic here maybe because water pipes are broken and there is flooding in the streets,” said a Reuters witness in the city.

Phone lines were down. Padang, the capital of Indonesia’s West Sumatra province, sits on one of the world’s most active fault lines along the “Ring of Fire” where the Indo-Australia plate grinds against the Eurasia plate to create regular tremors and sometimes quakes.

A 9.15 magnitude quake, with its epicentre roughly 600 km (373 miles) northwest of Padang, caused the 2004 tsunami which killed 232,000 people in Indonesia’s Aceh province, Thailand, Sri Lanka, India, and other countries across the Indian Ocean. The depth of Wednesday’s earthquake was measured at 85 km (53 miles), the United States Geological Survey said.

It revised down the magnitude of the quake from 7.9 to 7.6. A series of tsunamis earlier on Wednesday smashed into the Pacific island nations of American and Western Samoa, and Tonga killing possibly more than 100 people, some washed out to sea, destroying villages and injuring hundreds.

Global Warming Is Irreversible, Study Says

2009-10-09T18:39:00.000-07:00

Climate change is essentially irreversible, according to a sobering new scientific study.

As carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, the world will experience more and more long-term environmental disruption. The damage will persist even when, and if, emissions are brought under control, says study author Susan Solomon, who is among the world's top climate scientists.

"We're used to thinking about pollution problems as things that we can fix," Solomon says. "Smog, we just cut back and everything will be better later. Or haze, you know, it'll go away pretty quickly."

That's the case for some of the gases that contribute to climate change, such as methane and nitrous oxide. But as Solomon and colleagues suggest in a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, it is not true for the most abundant greenhouse gas: carbon dioxide. Turning off the carbon dioxide emissions won't stop global warming.

"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide that the climate would go back to normal in 100 years or 200 years. What we're showing here is that's not right. It's essentially an irreversible change that will last for more than a thousand years," Solomon says.

This is because the oceans are currently soaking up a lot of the planet's excess heat — and a lot of the carbon dioxide put into the air. The carbon dioxide and heat will eventually start coming out of the ocean. And that will take place for many hundreds of years.

Solomon is a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Her new study looked at the consequences of this long-term effect in terms of sea level rise and drought.

If we continue with business as usual for even a few more decades, she says, those emissions could be enough to create permanent dust-bowl conditions in the U.S. Southwest and around the Mediterranean.

"The sea level rise is a much slower thing, so it will take a long time to happen, but we will lock into it, based on the peak level of [carbon dioxide] we reach in this century," Solomon says.

The idea that changes will be irreversible has consequences for how we should deal with climate change. The global thermostat can't be turned down quickly once it's been turned up, so scientists say we need to proceed with more caution right now.

"These are all ... changes that are starting to happen in at least a minor way already," says Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University. "So the question becomes, where do we stop it, when does all of this become dangerous?"

The answer, he says, is sooner rather than later. Scientists have been trying to advise politicians about finding an acceptable level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The new study suggests that it's even more important to aim low. If we overshoot, the damage can't be easily undone. Oppenheimer feels more urgency than ever to deal with climate change, but he says that in the end, setting acceptable limits for carbon dioxide is a judgment call.

"That's really a political decision because there's more at issue than just the science. It's the issue of what the science says, plus what's feasible politically, plus what's reasonable economically to do," Oppenheimer says.

But despite this grim prognosis, Solomon says this is not time to declare the problem hopeless and give up.

"I guess if it's irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it," she says. "Because committing to something that you can't back out of seems to me like a step that you'd want to take even more carefully than something you thought you could reverse."

2009-10-09T18:32:00.000-07:00

The blue lagoon: how global warming is affecting a glacier in Iceland

Trees are growing faster and could buy time to halt global warming

2009-10-09T18:27:00.000-07:00

The phenomenon has been discovered in a variety of flora, ranging from tropical rainforests to British sugar beet crops.

It means they are soaking up at least some of the billions of tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere by humans that would otherwise be accelerating the rate of climate change.

Plants survive by extracting CO2 from the air and using sunlight to convert it into proteins and sugars.

Since 1750 the concentration in the air has risen from of CO2 278 parts per million (ppm) to more than 380 ppm, making it easier for plants to acquire the CO2 needed for rapid growth.

A study by the University of Leeds, published in the science journal Nature, measured the girth of 70,000 trees across 10 African countries and compared them with similar records made four decades ago.

On average, the trees were getting bigger faster and researchers found that each hectare of African forest was trapping an extra 0.6 tons of CO2 a year compared with the 1960s.

If this is replicated across the world's tropical rainforests they would be removing nearly 5 billion tons of CO2 a year from the atmosphere.

Scientists have been looking for a similar impact on crop yields and the experiments generally suggest that raised CO2 levels would boost the yields of mainstream crops, such as maize, rice and soy, by about 13 per cent.

Professor Martin Parry, head of plant science at Rothamsted Research, Britain's leading crop institute, said: "There is no doubt that the enrichment of the air with CO2 is increasing plant growth rates in many areas.

"The problem is that humans are releasing so much that plants can remove only a fraction of it," he said.

Humans are believed to generate about 50 billion tons of the gas each year.

However, scientists have warned against drawing false comfort from such findings. They point out that although levels will boost plant growth, other factors associated with climate change, such as rising temperatures and drought, are likely to have a negative effect.

Fred Pearce, environment consultant for New Scientist, said: "We know that trees do absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and about half is taken up from nature and half of that is by forests. But it doesn't change the story greenhouse gases are accumulating more than 2 per cent a year.

"It won't buy us much time as humans are releasing much more CO2 into the air, but it is useful information if it helps to protect existing forests."

Global climate change impacts in the United States

2009-07-20T10:39:00.000-07:00

Situ Gintung search drags on as death toll reaches 91

2009-04-01T02:42:00.000-07:00

In the aftermath of the deadly collapse of the Situ Gintung sluice gate and embankment in Cireundeu, Tangerang, a joint search and rescue team scoured the area devastated by the dam burst on Saturday, recovering more bodies and bringing the death toll to 91.

Coordinator of the police post at STIE Ahmad Dahlan, Comr. Dahlan said that the teams had found 33 bodies as of Saturday evening.

Dahlan, however, said that the team found it difficult to identify the bodies recovered from the thick mud and building rubble.

“Many victims are not registered by our neighborhood unit because they were university students who rented rooms in the neighborhood,” Bejo, an official of the severely-damaged neighborhood unit (RT) 04, said.

The police said they were still searching for 73 people reportedly missing from the 15-minute disaster.

More than 1,000 search and rescue team members would keep searching for victims every day from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. for a week.

“Then, we will use backhoes and bulldozers to clean up the rubble,” Tangerang military commander Lt. Col. Joni Abdi said, as quoted by Vivanews.com.

The dam burst, triggered by torrential rains on Friday evening, had flatted 319 homes, schools and a university campus. More than 500 residents became homeless and were staying at temporary shelters erected at several locations around the disaster area.

“So far, we’ve got enough food. But, we don’t have clothes to change into or clean water to take a shower,” said Sarminah, a resident of RT 01, who has been residing in the area for eight years.

But, another victim, Supriyati, a mother of two, said what she wants most is a new house.
“What we are thinking right now is about our house. The walls are all crushed although my house still has the pillars,” she said.

Most residents whose homes were swamped with water during the flash flood were seen cleaning up debris and mud from their homes on Saturday.

“We have decided to move to a safer location. For the time being, we will rent a house ,” said children’s rights activist Seto Mulyadi.

The flash flood, called by residents a ‘mini-tsunami’, had swept through Seto’s house and damaged five cars and one motorcycle, along with important documents.

Saturday’s massive clean-up and search, however, was slowed by an influx of unwanted visitors as thousands of people who came to see the area.

“We had to ask the people that came for ID. We didn’t want any thieves coming to loot valuables from abandoned houses,” said Denny, one of the locals who asked every visitor to show their ID.

“We have seen the disaster on TV, but we want to see it directly with our own eyes,” Tajudin, a resident of Palmerah, West Jakarta, said. Tajudin and some of his neighbors came to the site on motorcycles and said they also wanted to see the rescue team searching for victims.

An official with the Public Affairs Ministry, Widagdo, said that the ministry would not immediately rebuild the collapsed embankment.

“We will instead make a temporary 2-kilometer canal to let the Situ Gintung lake water flow into the Pesanggrahan River below, to ease the pressure on the lake and prevent any further collapses,” Widagdo said.

Separately, Golkar Party chairman Jusuf Kalla handed down some Rp 1 billion (US$60,846) in donations for the victims through Banten Governor Ratu Atut Chosiyah at the party’s campaign in Jakarta. (iwp)

Lights out tonight

2009-04-01T02:37:00.000-07:00

If you care for Earth, switch off your lights for one hour from 8.30 p.m. You will be joining an expected one billion people around the world in the Earth Hour movement to make a case for concrete action to spare the planet from the menace of global warming. Jakarta, courtesy of Governor Fauzi Bowo, will be one of 1,539 cities from 80 countries, according to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), that will participate in this global community movement to press their case. Although this is expected to be an annual event, this year is important because a new protocol on global warming should be put in place before 2010. World governments are still ironing out remaining differences on a new document to replace the Kyoto Protocol before they head to their final round in Copenhagen in December. Our action tonight will send a message to global leaders to get their acts together. Indonesia has invested considerably in the process, having hosted one of the international climate change meetings in Bali in 2007. While our participation tonight may seem to be a token gesture - a mere one hour without a light in one evening a year - the WWF Indonesia has come up with interesting figures to show that our action goes beyond symbolic.

Assuming everyone in Jakarta heeds the call, the action represents a saving of 300 megawatts, enough to give one power plant a rest and light up 900 villages; it amounts to a saving of Rp 200 million (US$17,248) in electricity bills in Jakarta; it reduces 284 tons of carbon dioxide; it saves more than 284 trees; and it produces oxygen for more than 568 people. Jakarta has an obligation to take part in this global movement, not because it is the capital city, but because it is the biggest user of the national electricity supply. Its 10 million population, or less than five percent of the national total, accounts for one fifth of the national electricity usage. This gross imbalance puts the onus on we Jakartans to show that we do care about Earth, and that we are willing to put these concerns into action when asked to. Just for tonight, we should put our general election concerns aside and follow the WWF message: Vote Earth.

The various benefits of using unconventional and natural sources of energy

2009-01-13T09:02:00.000-08:00

The various benefits of using unconventional and natural sources of energy

Everyone knows that the conventional sources of energy are depleting fast from the earth. The environment has been damaged by the over use of fossil fuels and global warming is giving the scientists sleepless nights. That is why the researchers and scientists are trying to devise new ways of producing environment friendly energy.

As a matter of fact, there are certain obvious advantages of using solar power. Unlike the fossil fuels the solar energy is not going to come to an end. Besides, people do not have to pay for sunlight. Even the catholic Churches are using solar energy, the biggest example being the Vatican. With time the appliances running on solar energy are getting more compact and user friendly. Thus the home owners have more choices in their hands.

A solar energy system does not need prolonged maintenance after installation. The photovoltaic cells can last up to 30 years. A residential solar power system also does not cause any pollution and create any waste material. These devices also do not put the health of the users at risk.

The conventional fuels like Petrol and diesel have played a significant role in damaging the environment. The issues like global warming and ozone layer erosion has become the buzzword in the researcher community. Therefore many companies and entities are trying to develop devices and appliances that can run on solar energy.

Another natural force that can be used to generate electricity at home is wind. The wind powered homes still need some amount of power from conventional electric supply. However those who use these devices need to pay low electricity bills. If a person lives in a region that has high wind speeds he should buy the wind driven electricity generation devices. However for installing these wind based electricity generation devices one requires a lot of space.

The wind powered homes do not cause any pollution as well. If a lot of people switch to the wind energy the conventional fossil fuel driven production units may become redundant in the future. This will help people in making the earth a better place for living for the next generations. The car companies are already doing their bit. Some of the popular car manufacturers have introduced the hybrid cars in the market. They consume less fuel and makes use of water or bio diesel. Similarly people can switch to using alternative environment friendly energy at their homes.

At the early stage the switchover may be a little difficult. But the heartening thing is that many governments and companies are promoting the solar and wind energy driven products more than ever before. The installation cost of the wind turbines can be steep but the running cost is minimal. The domestic wind machines are not noisy at all and so one need not bother about sound pollution either. The system also works fine with the existing wiring and one need not replace his wiring system.

Hydrogen Gas Savers - Hydrogen Powered Cars

2009-01-13T08:59:00.000-08:00

Hydrogen powered cars are essentially vehicles which use hydrogen as fuel to power the motor. The term hydrogen powered car may refer to any type of vehicle which uses hydrogen for transportation purposes, which includes both personal automobiles and aircraft carriers.

How do hydrogen powered cars work?

The power for hydrogen powered cars is obtained by converting the chemical energy properties found in hydrogen into mechanical energy. This conversion is accomplished in two different ways. The first method, combustion, burns the hydrogen in the engine in essentially the same way as regular petrol or gasoline powered cars. The second method, fuel-cell conversion, causes a chemical reaction in the hydrogen to create electricity. The hydrogen is introduced to oxygen, which changes its chemical composition into water and electricity. The newly converted electricity is then utilized to propel and power the motor.

What type of vehicles can run on hydrogen?

A host of different modes of transportation can use hydrogen power. Many different vehicles, such as rockets, high-speed cars, submarines, airplanes, ships, wheelchairs, motorcycles, golf carts, cargo bikes, PHB bicycles, trains, and buses already operate using this source of energy in various ways, often at a high cost. Recently, NASA chose to use hydrogen in the launching of Space Shuttles and of course regular cars and trucks as well. You can convert your car to run on water. With this new fuel technology, people saving hundreds of dollars every month. Another advantages are: eliminates harmful exhaust emission that pollute the environment and contribute to global warming, enhance engine power and performance, remove carbon deposits, reduce the operating temperature of the engine, calmer, quieter and much smoother engine operation, improves your gas mileage by up to 35%. Imagine how much money this would save you at the end of the month!

Virtually any car or truck on the road today can be converted from a traditional gas-guzzling model to an efficient, hydrogen gas saver with little effort. Some companies today offer conversion kits for the consumer or hobbyist who chooses to convert their own vehicles. A working system can be built at home with basic hand tools for 20$-100$, can be installed in minutes and removed in seconds.

The internet is flooded with reports of satisfied individuals, who disclose their gas savings, their mileage calculations, the ease or difficulty in making the conversion, and how the new conversion has or has not helped them, the latter being due primarily to incorrect placement of system equipment or improper driving practices.