Real Trouble In The Arctic

On the heels of yesterday's back-handed good news on the Amazon come this pair of troubling reports from NASA on Arctic ice. In the first, melting sea ice has now shrunk so far below the minimum set in 2005 that researchers, speaking between the lines, clearly fear we may have already passed a tipping point. From Waleed Abdalati, head of NASA Goddard's Cryospheric Sciences Branch:

This year, the amount of ice is so far below that of previous years that it really is cause for concern. The trend in decreasing ice cover seems to be getting stronger and stronger as time goes on. . . The longer this process continues, the less likely recovery becomes. The implications on global climate are not well known, but they have the potential to be quite large, since the Arctic ice cover exhibits a tremendous influence on our climate.

And from Josefino C. Comiso, senior scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland:

When there is less sea ice in the summer, the Arctic Ocean receives more heat. The warmer water makes it harder for the ice to recover in the winter, and, therefore, there is a higher likelihood that sea ice will retreat farther during the summer. This process repeats itself year after year.

The second study found that 2007 has seen an overall rise in melting over the entire Greenland ice sheet, with melting in high-altitude areas reaching the greatest extent ever observed, at 150 percent more than average. The amount of snow melted this year in Greenland would cover the surface size of the U.S. more than twice. Apparently melting icecaps are as bad as melting sea ice, only in a different way. This from Marco Tedesco at the Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology:

When snow melts at those high altitudes and then refreezes, it can absorb up to four times more energy than fresh, unthawed snow. This can affect Earth's energy budget by changing how much radiation from the sun is absorbed by the Earth versus that reflected back into the atmosphere. Refrozen snow can also alter the snow density, thickness and snow-water content. [Furthermore] increases in the overall melting trend over Greenland have an impact that stretches beyond its icy shores. Aside from contributing to direct sea level rise, melting especially along the coast can speed up glaciers since the meltwater acts like a lubricant between the frozen surface and the bedrock deep below. The faster glaciers flow, the more water enters the ocean and potentially impacts sea level rise.

So why is it exactly that Bush is asking for $195 billion more to fight the wrong war at exactly the time we need to be spending unprecedented amounts on the battle to save the only climate we know how to live with? JULIA WHITTY

Comments

Thank you for pointing out that the environment trumps even the war in Iraq as the most important issue we face today. I have been curious throughout the entire campaign for presidency why none of the candidates and none of the debate moderators are placing this issue ahead of all others. Why is the environment taking a back seat when it has the potential to cause global civilizational collapse and even possible human extinction? What could be more important to humans than a significant risk of human extinction?

http://misanthropicscott.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/environment-a-backseat-driver/

Posted by: Misanthropic Scott on 09/25/07 at 7:09 PM Respond

The war racketeers’ [perceived] profits come from wars not the ecosystems. United States pays 51 percent of the federal budget (51 cents in every tax dollar) to the war racketeers, instead of spending on education, health and welfare of the citizens which includes the health of ecosystems. With less than 5 percent of the world population, United States accounts for more than 50 percent of world’s total military spending. See http://rtsf.wordpress.com/petitions/

Do you see the war racketeers opting for “sustainability,” “renewable energy” or “restoration of the ecosystems” anytime soon?

Posted by: terres on 09/26/07 at 1:23 AM Respond

No more wars for Israel, oil,and capitalism. Stop the next war with Iran.
The leading presidential candidates are all frauds. They are supported by the establishment. Vote third party. Vote Green. Peace to all.

Posted by: Suzi S. on 09/26/07 at 10:13 AM Respond

Dear Mother Jones

Could you kindly state your reason(s) for blocking [perfectly reasonable]replies posted by my colleagues and their friends?

Thanks!

Posted by: terres on 09/26/07 at 6:35 PM Respond

terres,

I do not represent mojo and so cannot say what has been happening. Most blog software has an anti-spam filter. If your colleagues and friends are posting multiple links, most anti-spam filters will flag their posts as spam. I am not sure what the good folks at MoJo or their blog admins have chosen as their threshold. On my blog, I allow three links because I know I like to post them. The default was one, meaning that the default would have trapped any post with two links and called it spam. Anyway, the short answer is that if links are the reason, try splitting the posts.

Posted by: Misanthropic Scott on 09/27/07 at 9:24 PM Respond

M... Scott

That's a possibility. On my/our blogs you can say or post all you want (within reason), though we moderate to remove profanity and incitement to violence.

Posted by: terres on 09/28/07 at 12:13 AM Respond