CONTENTS
Click
HERE to Read the Truth About Climate Change!
CLICK HERE to visit the Coral Reef Action
Page
Click HERE to see a report on Global
Warming in the Arctic Region.
Click Here to see a report
on Global Warming in the Antarctic Region
The Earth Is Our Mother
New Warning On Arctic Ice
Cap Melting
Snowmelt In Antarctica
Creeping Inland, Based On 20 Year Of NASA Data
NASA
Finds Vast Regions of West Antarctica Melted in Recent Past
ANTARCTIC'S ICE 'MELTING
FASTER'
WHATS WRONG WITH DESTROYING THE
OZONE AND MELTING ALL THE ICE AT THE POLES?
THE EARTH IS
OUR MOTHER!!!
The Earth supports us. Stripping her bare of all
her resources is like a baby sucking it's mother dry and then dying in the womb.
Ripping up her forests, dumping waste into her oceans, exploding nuclear missiles in the
South Pacific, and burning trash that we should be recycling is the same as turning on
your Mother and trying to kill her!!!
I hear you cry, 'but there's nothing I can do!'
There IS something you can do, whether it is only
recycling your waste. Paper, glass, aluminum and some plastics can all be
recycled. It doesn't take a great deal of effort to do this. If you are a
political activist write to you local politician and join an organization dedicated to the
care of the world. If you are attending college there may be a body concerned with
these things already in place, and if there isn't, start one. Don't buy things from
companies known to pollute, try not to pollute yourself.
Yes, all these things well take effort and time, but in
the long run if we all took just 5 minutes a day to do the right thing, we could stop the
world from being completely drained within the next generation.
Whenever you save energy--or use it more efficiently--you
reduce the demand for gasoline, oil, coal, and natural gas. Less burning of these fossil
fuels means lower emissions of carbon dioxide, the major contributor to global warming.
Right now the U.S. releases about 40,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per person each
year. If we can reduce energy use enough to lower greenhouse gas emissions by about 2% a
year, in ten years we will "lose" about 7000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions
per person.
Here are 20 simple steps that can help cut your annual emissions of carbon dioxide by
thousands of pounds. The carbon dioxide reduction shown for each action is an average
saving.
HOME APPLIANCES
1.Run your dishwasher only with a full load. Use the energy-saving setting to dry the
dishes. Don't use heat when drying. Carbon dioxide reduction: 200 pounds a year.
2.Wash clothes in warm or cold water, not hot. Carbon dioxide reduction (for two loads a
week): up to 500 pounds a year.
3.Turn down your water heater thermostat; 120 degrees is usually hot enough. Carbon
dioxide reduction (for each 10- degree adjustment): 500 pounds a year.
HOME HEATING AND COOLING
4.Don't overheat or overcool rooms. Adjust your thermostat (lower in winter, higher in
summer). Carbon dioxide reduction (for each 2-degree adjustment): about 500 pounds a
year.
5.Clean or replace air filters as recommended. Cleaning a dirty air conditioner filter can
save 5% of the energy used. Carbon dioxide reduction: About 175 pounds a year.
SMALL INVESTMENTS THAT PAY OFF
6.Buy energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs for your most-used lights.
Carbon dioxide reduction (by replacing one frequently used bulb): about 500 pounds a year.
7.Wrap your water heater in an insulating jacket. Carbon dioxide reduction: Up
to 1000 pounds a year.
8.Install low-flow shower heads to use less hot water. Carbon dioxide reduction: Up
to 300 pounds a year.
9.Caulk and weatherstrip around doors and windows to plug air leaks. Carbon dioxide
reduction: Up to 1000 pounds a year.
10.Ask your utility company for a home energy audit to find out where your home is poorly
insulated or energy-inefficient. Carbon dioxide reduction: Potentially, thousands of
pounds a
year.
GETTING AROUND
11.Whenever possible, walk, bike, carpool or use mass transit. Carbon dioxide
reduction (for every gallon of gasoline you save): 20 pounds.
12.When you buy a car, choose one that gets good gas mileage. Carbon dioxide
reduction (if your new car gets 10 mpg more than your old one): about 2500 pounds a year.
REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE
13.Reduce waste: Buy minimally packaged goods; choose reusable products over disposable
ones; recycle. Carbon dioxide reduction (if you cut down your garbage by 25%): 1000
pounds a year.
14.If your car has an air conditioner, make sure its coolant is recycled whenever you have
it serviced. Equivalent carbon dioxide reduction: Thousands of pounds.
HOME IMPROVEMENTS
15.Insulate your walls and ceilings; this can save about 25% of home heating bills.
Carbon dioxide reduction: Up to 2000 pounds a year.
16.If you need to replace your windows, install the best energy-saving models.
Carbon dioxide reduction: Up to 10,000 pounds a year.
17.Plant trees next to your home and paint your home a light color if you live in a warm
climate, or a dark color in a cold climate. Carbon dioxide reduction: About 5000
pounds a year.
18.As you replace home appliances, select the most energy-efficient models. Carbon
dioxide reduction (if you replace your old refrigerator with an efficient model): 3000
pounds a year.
SCHOOLS, BUSINESS, AND COMMUNITIES
19.Reduce waste and promote energy-efficient measures at your school or workplace. Work in
your community to set up recycling programs. Carbon dioxide reduction (for every
pound of office paper recycled): 4 pounds.
20.Be informed about environmental issues. Keep track of candidates' voting records and
write or call to express concerns. Carbon dioxide reduction (if we vote to raise
U.S. auto fuel efficiency): Billions of pounds.
Ice reveals good news, bad news on climate
Experts find natural feedback mechanism, but say it's 'out of
equilibrium'
Sun., April. 27, 2008
WASHINGTON
- Before humans began burning fossil fuels, there was an eons-long balance between carbon
dioxide emissions and Earth's ability to absorb them, but now the planet can't keep up,
scientists said on Sunday.
The
finding, reported in the journal Nature Geoscience, relies on ice cores taken from
Antarctica's Lake Vostok that contain air samples going back 610,000 years.
Climate
scientists for the last 25 years or so have suggested that some kind of natural feedback
mechanism regulates our planet's temperature and the level of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. Those skeptical about human influence on global warming point to this, not
fossil fuel emissions, as the cause for recent climate change.
"We
have provided the first observational evidence for the operation and efficacy of this
feedback, which reveals its essential role for stabilizing the Earths long-term
climate," the study authors wrote.
This
feedback mechanism has been thrown out of whack by a steep rise in carbon dioxide
emissions from the burning of coal and petroleum for the last 200 years or so, said
Richard Zeebe, a co-author of the report.
'Entirely
out of equilibrium'
"These feedbacks operate so slowly that they will not help us in terms of climate
change ... that we're going to see in the next several hundred years," Zeebe said by
telephone from the University of Hawaii. "Right now we have put the system entirely
out of equilibrium."
In the
ancient past, excess carbon dioxide came mostly from volcanoes, which spewed very little
of the chemical compared to what humans activities do now, but it still had to be
addressed.
This
ancient excess carbon dioxide a powerful greenhouse gas was removed from the
atmosphere through the weathering of mountains, which take in the chemical. In the end, it
was washed downhill into oceans and buried in deep sea sediments, Zeebe said.
Zeebe
analyzed carbon dioxide that had been captured in Antarctic ice, and by figuring out how
much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere at various points in time, he and his co-author
Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University,
determined that it waxed and waned along with the world's temperature.
"When
the carbon dioxide was low, the temperature was low, and we had an ice age," he said.
And while Earth's temperature fell during ice ages and rose during so-called interglacial
periods between them, the planet's mean temperature has been going slowly down for about
600,000 years.
Lots more
molecules in air The average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the
last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume, Zeebe said, which means
that 22 molecules of carbon dioxide were added to, or removed from, every million
molecules of air.
Since the
Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century, ushering in the widespread human use of
fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 100 parts per
million.
That means
human activities are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere about 14,000 times as fast
as natural processes do, Zeebe said.
And it
appears to be speeding up: the U.S. government reported last week that in 2007 alone,
atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 2.4 parts per million.
The
natural mechanism will eventually absorb the excess carbon dioxide, Zeebe said, but not
for hundreds of thousands of years.
"This
is a time period that we can hardly imagine," he said. "They are way too slow to
help us to restore the balance that we have now basically distorted in a very short period
of time."
Slide
Shows
Warming
signals
View images from around the world that show signs of global warming.
Ice
at the edge
View images of Greenland, where coastal edges of its vast ice cap are melting at an
alarming rate.
Interactives
Rising seas
What future sea levels could mean for some of America's favorite places
The
greenhouse effect
How the Earth maintains a temperature conducive to life
Cooling the
planet
Check out five far-out ideas on how to engineer a cooler Earth.
Eyeing
the ice
The National Science Foundation's Tom Wagner on why climate experts study Antarctica
Melting
mountains
Data shows five areas of concern
New Warning On Arctic Ice Cap Melting
Satellite Images Show Volume Of Sea Ice At
Summer's End Was Half That Of 2003
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13, 2007
An already relentless melting of the
Arctic greatly accelerated this summer, a warning sign that some scientists worry could
mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point. One speculates that summer sea
ice might be gone in just five years.
Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and
the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years earlier,
according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press.
"The Arctic is screaming," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the
government's snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colo.
Just last year, two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the
Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of
2040.
This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said:
"At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by
2012, much faster than previous predictions."
So scientists in recent days have been asking themselves
these questions: Was the record melt seen all over the Arctic in 2007 a blip amid
relentless and steady warming? Or has everything sped up to a new climate cycle that goes
beyond the worst case scenarios presented by computer models?
"The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming,"
said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now as a sign of climate warming, the
canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."
It is the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels
that produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, responsible for man-made global
warming. For the past several days, government diplomats have been debating in Bali,
Indonesia, the outlines of a new climate treaty calling for tougher limits on these gases.
What happens in the Arctic has implications for the rest of the world. Faster melting
there means eventual sea level rise and more immediate changes in winter weather because
of less sea ice.
In the United States, a weakened Arctic blast moving south to collide with moist air from
the Gulf of Mexico can mean less rain and snow in some areas, including the
drought-stricken Southeast, said Michael MacCracken, a former federal climate scientist
who now heads the nonprofit Climate Institute. Some regions, like Colorado, would likely
get extra rain or snow.
More than 18 scientists told the AP that they were surprised
by the level of ice melt this year.
"I don't pay much attention to one year ... but this year the change is so big,
particularly in the Arctic sea ice, that you've got to stop and say, 'What is going on
here?' You can't look away from what's happening here," said Waleed Abdalati, NASA's
chief of cyrospheric sciences. "This is going to be a watershed year."
(CBS/AP) Records for Arctic melt were shattered in 2007 in the following ways:
552 billion tons of ice melted this summer from the Greenland ice sheet, according to
preliminary satellite data to be released by NASA Wednesday. That's 15 percent more than
the annual average summer melt, beating 2005's record.
A record amount of surface ice was lost over Greenland this year, 12 percent more than the
previous worst year, 2005, according to data the University of Colorado released Monday.
That's nearly quadruple the amount that melted just 15 years ago. It's an amount of water
that could cover Washington, D.C., a half-mile deep, researchers calculated.
The surface area of summer sea ice floating in the Arctic
Ocean this summer was nearly 23 percent below the previous record. The dwindling sea ice
already has affected wildlife, with 6,000 walruses coming ashore in northwest Alaska in
October for the first time in recorded history. Another first: the Northwest Passage was
open to navigation.
Still to be released is NASA data showing the remaining Arctic sea ice to be unusually
thin, another record. That makes it more likely to melt in future summers. Combining the
shrinking area covered by sea ice with the new thinness of the remaining ice, scientists
calculate that the overall volume of ice is half of 2004's total.
Alaska's frozen permafrost is warming, not quite thawing yet. But temperature measurements
66 feet deep in the frozen soil rose nearly four-tenths of a degree from 2006 to 2007,
according to measurements from the University of Alaska. While that may not sound like
much, "it's very significant," said University of Alaska professor Vladimir
Romanovsky.
Surface temperatures in the Arctic Ocean this summer were the highest in 77 years of
record-keeping, with some places 8 degrees Fahrenheit above normal, according to research
to be released Wednesday by University of Washington's Michael Steele.
Greenland, in particular, is a significant bellwether. Most
of its surface is covered by ice. If it completely melted - something key scientists think
would likely take centuries, not decades - it could add more than 22 feet to the world's
sea level.
However, for nearly the past 30 years, the data pattern of its ice sheet melt has
zigzagged. A bad year, like 2005, would be followed by a couple of lesser years.
According to that pattern, 2007 shouldn't have been a major melt year, but it was, said
Konrad Steffen, of the University of Colorado, which gathered the latest data.
"I'm quite concerned," he said. "Now I look at 2008. Will it be even warmer
than the past year?"
Other new data, from a NASA satellite, measures ice volume. NASA geophysicist Scott
Luthcke, reviewing it and other Greenland numbers, concluded: "We are quite likely
entering a new regime."
Melting of sea ice and Greenland's ice sheets also alarms scientists because they become
part of a troubling spiral.
White sea ice reflects about 80 percent of the sun's heat
off Earth, NASA's Zwally said. When there is no sea ice, about 90 percent of the heat goes
into the ocean which then warms everything else up. Warmer oceans then lead to more
melting.
"That feedback is the key to why the models predict that the Arctic warming is going
to be faster," Zwally said. "It's getting even worse than the models
predicted."
NASA scientist James Hansen, the lone-wolf researcher often called the godfather of global
warming, on Thursday was to tell scientists and others at the American Geophysical Union
scientific in San Francisco that in some ways Earth has hit one of his so-called tipping
points, based on Greenland melt data.
"We have passed that and some other tipping points in the way that I will define
them," Hansen said in an e-mail. "We have not passed a point of no return. We
can still roll things back in time - but it is going to require a quick turn in
direction."
Last year, Cecilia Bitz at the University of Washington and
Marika Holland at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado startled their
colleagues when they predicted an Arctic free of sea ice in just a few decades. Both say
they are surprised by the dramatic melt of 2007.
Bitz, unlike others at NASA, believes that "next year we'll be back to normal, but
we'll be seeing big anomalies again, occurring more frequently in the future." And
that normal, she said, is still a "relentless decline" in ice.
Meanwhile, European nations on Thursday threatened to boycott a U.S.-led climate meeting
next month unless Washington agrees to a deal mentioning numerical targets for deep
reductions in global warming gases.
The United Nations warned that time was running out for an agreement aimed at launching
negotiations for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol and the talks in Bali were in danger of
"falling to pieces."
The United States, Japan, Russia and several other governments refuse to accept language
in a draft document suggesting that industrialized nations consider cutting emissions by
25 percent to 40 percent by 2020, saying specific targets would limit the scope of future
talks.
The European Union and others say the figures reflect the
measures scientists say are needed to rein in global warming and head off predictions of
rising sea levels, worsening floods and droughts, and the extinction of plant and animal
species.
Snowmelt In Antarctica Creeping Inland, Based On
20 Year Of NASA Data
ScienceDaily
(Sep. 24, 2007) On the world's coldest continent of Antarctica, the
landscape is so vast and varied that only satellites can fully capture the extent of
changes in the snow melting across its valleys, mountains, glaciers and ice shelves.
In a new NASA study, researchers using 20 years of data
from space-based sensors have confirmed that Antarctic snow is melting farther inland from
the coast over time, melting at higher altitudes than ever and increasingly melting on
Antarctica's largest ice shelf.
With a surface size about 1.5 times the size of the
United States, Antarctica contains 90 percent of Earth's fresh water, making it the
largest potential source of sea level rise. It is also a place where snow melting is quite
limited because even in summer, most areas typically record temperatures well below zero.
Nevertheless, NASA researchers using data collected from
1987 to 2006 found snow melting in unlikely places in 2005: as far inland as 500 miles
away from the Antarctic coast and as high as 1.2 miles above sea level in the
Transantarctic Mountains.
The 20-year data record was three times longer than
previous studies and reaffirmed the extreme melting irregularity observed in 2005. During
the same period, they also found that melting had increased on the Ross Ice Shelf, both in
terms of the geographic area affected and the duration of increased melting across
affected areas.
"Snow melting is very connected to surface
temperature change, so it's likely warmer temperatures are at the root of what we've
observed in Antarctica," said lead author Marco Tedesco, a research scientist at the
Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology cooperatively managed by NASA's Goddard Space
Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and the University of Maryland at Baltimore County,
Baltimore. The study will be published on Sept. 22 in the American Geophysical Union's
Geophysical Research Letters.
The Special Sensor Microwave Imager radiometer aboard the
Defense Meteorological Satellite Program's satellites provided the researchers an update
on previous studies by showing evidence of persistent snow melting -- melting that occurs
for at least three days or for one consecutive day and night. As the sensors fly over
Antarctica, they measure the radiation naturally emitted by snow and ice at microwave
frequencies. Unlike visible sensors, Microwave instruments can also detect melting below
the snow surface.
"Microwave instruments are very sensitive to wet
snow and can see through clouds day and night, allowing us to separate melting from dry
snow to better understand when, where and for how long melting took place," said
Tedesco.
Although the researchers observed less melting in some
locations on the continent during the 20-year period, melting increased in others such as
the Ross Ice Shelf. Increased snowmelt on the ice shelf surface can lead to melt ponds,
with meltwater filling small cracks. The liquid water puts pressure on the cracks causing
larger fractures in the ice shelf.
"Persistent melting on the Ross Ice Shelf is
something we should not lose sight of because of the ice shelf's role as a 'brake system'
for glaciers," said Tedesco. "Ice shelves are thick ice masses covering coastal
land with extended areas that float on the sea, keeping warmer marine air at a distance
from glaciers and preventing a greater acceleration of melting. The Ross Ice Shelf acts
like a freezer door, separating ice on the inside from warmer air on the outside. So the
smaller that door becomes, the less effective it will be at protecting the ice inside from
melting and escaping."
The study's results from the satellite data support
related research reporting a direct link between changes in near surface air temperatures
and the duration and geographic area of snow melting on Antarctica. These studies, when
taken together, indicate a relationship to climate change.
"Satellites have given us a remarkable ability to
monitor the melting trends of glaciers and ice shelves on this immense and largely unknown
continent, and to watch for unusual occurrences like those observed in 2005," said
co-author Waleed Abdalati, head of the Cryospheric Sciences Branch at NASA's Goddard Space
Flight Center. "Through this space-based perspective, we are really only just
beginning to understand the nature of the changes that are occurring in Antarctica, and
what these changes will mean for Antarctica's future contributions to sea level."
Adapted from materials provided by NASA/Goddard Space
Flight Center.
NASA Finds Vast Regions of West Antarctica Melted
in Recent Past
05.15.07
A team of NASA and university scientists has
found clear evidence that extensive areas of snow melted in west Antarctica in January
2005 in response to warm temperatures. This was the first widespread Antarctic melting
ever detected with NASA's QuikScat satellite and the most significant melt observed using
satellites during the past three decades. Combined, the affected regions encompassed an
area as big as California.
Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and Konrad Steffen,
director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the
University of Colorado, Boulder, led the team. Using data from QuikScat, they measured
snowfall accumulation and melt in Antarctica and Greenland from July 1999 through July
2005.
Image right: NASA's QuikScat satellite detected extensive areas of
snowmelt, shown in yellow and red, in west Antarctica in January 2005. Image credit:
NASA/JPL
The observed melting occurred in multiple distinct
regions, including far inland, at high latitudes and at high elevations, where melt had
been considered unlikely. Evidence of melting was found up to 900 kilometers (560 miles)
inland from the open ocean, farther than 85 degrees south (about 500 kilometers, or 310
miles, from the South Pole) and higher than 2,000 meters (6,600 feet) above sea level.
Maximum air temperatures at the time of the melting were unusually high, reaching more
than five degrees Celsius (41 degrees Fahrenheit) in one of the affected areas. They
remained above melting for approximately a week.
"Antarctica has shown little to no warming in the
recent past with the exception of the Antarctic Peninsula, but now large regions are
showing the first signs of the impacts of warming as interpreted by this satellite
analysis," said Steffen. "Increases in snowmelt, such as this in 2005,
definitely could have an impact on larger-scale melting of Antarctica's ice sheets if they
were severe or sustained over time."
The satellite's scatterometer instrument sends radar pulses to the ice sheet surface,
measuring the echoed pulses that bounce back. When snow melts and then refreezes, it
changes to ice, just as ice cream crystallizes when it is left out too long and is then
refrozen. QuikScat can differentiate this icy fingerprint in the snow cover and can map on
a continental scale the extent of strong snowmelt and the subsequently formed ice layer.
Available ground station measurements validate the satellite results.
The 2005 melt was intense enough to create an extensive ice layer when water refroze after
the melt. However, the melt was not prolonged enough for the melt water to flow into the
sea.
"Water from melted snow can penetrate into ice sheets through cracks and narrow,
tubular glacial shafts called moulins," Steffen said. "If sufficient melt water
is available, it may reach the bottom of the ice sheet. This water can lubricate the
underside of the ice sheet at the bedrock, causing the ice mass to move toward the ocean
faster, increasing sea level."
Changes in the ice mass of Antarctica, Earth's largest
freshwater reservoir, are important to understanding global sea level rise. Large amounts
of Antarctic freshwater flowing into the ocean also could affect ocean salinity, currents
and global climate.
Nghiem said while no further melting had been detected through March 2007, more monitoring
is needed. "Satellite scatterometry is like an X-ray that sees through snow and finds
ice layers beneath as early as possible," he said. "It is vital we continue
monitoring this region to determine if a long-term trend may be developing."
QuikScat data are helping scientists better understand how Antarctica's and Greenland's
ice sheets gain or lose mass. "We need to know what's coming in and going out of the
ice sheets," Nghiem said. "QuikScat data, combined with data from NASA's IceSat
and Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites, along with aircraft and ground
measurements, all contribute to more accurate estimates of how the polar ice sheets are
changing."
The study, "Snow Accumulation and Snowmelt Monitoring in Greenland and
Antarctica," appears in the recently published book "Dynamic Planet."
|
|
A team of UK researchers claims to have new evidence that
global warming is melting the ice in Antarctica faster than had previously been thought.
Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (Bas) say
the rise in sea levels around the world caused by the melting may have been
under-estimated.
It is thought that over 13,000 sq km of sea ice in the
Antarctic Peninsula has been lost over the last 50 years.
The findings were announced at a Climate Change
Conference in Exeter.
Rising sea level
Professor Chris Rapley, director of (Bas), told the
conference that Antarctica could become a "giant awakened", contributing heavily
to rising sea levels.
Melting in the Antarctic Peninsula removes sea ice that
once held back the movement of glaciers. As a result, glaciers flow into the ocean up to
six times faster than before.
The other region in the continent affected by the changes
is West Antarctica, where warmer sea water is thought to be eroding the ice from
underneath.
In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) predicted the average global sea level would rise by between 11cm (4.3in) and 77cm
(30.3in) by 2100 - but forecast that Antarctic's contribution would be small.
Ice chunks
Over the past five years, studies have found that melting
Antarctic ice caps contribute at least 15% to the current global sea level rise of 2mm
(0.08in) a year.
It is not known whether the melting is the result of a
natural event or the result of global warming.
Professor Rapley said that if this was natural
variability, it might be expected to be taking place in only a handful of places. However,
studies had shown that it was happening in all three major ice streams in West Antarctica,
he added.
Several major sections of Antarctic ice have broken off
in the past decade.
The Larsen A ice shelf, which measured 1,600 sq km, broke
off in 1995. The 1,100 sq km Wilkins ice shelf fell off in 1998 and the 13,500 sq km
Larsen B dropped away in 2002.
|
WHATS WRONG WITH DESTROYING
THE OZONE AND MELTING ALL THE ICE AT THE POLES?
There are some idiots out there who say that we have
nothing to really worry about, that global warming can't possibly harm us, that the hole
in the ozone over antartica is not a problem since cars and lightning creates ozone, so it
will replenish itself. AND that big business has a right to be excused from
polluting since it creates jobs. AND that it is somehow not right for people to make
money from protecting and improving the environment. Wrong!!!
Climate leaves indelible evidence in the geologic record.
That means that by carefully studying core samples of ice (the most accurate medium) and
earth, we can get a very accurate indication of the climate of the area the core was taken
from for the time period the strata corresponds to. Since we can and have studied core
samples covering millions of years, it is indeed possible to make reasonable models of how
the climate is changing and how our actions as a species are affecting this change.
The geologic record shows no other period in earths history when the planet warmed as
rapidly as it is now. Yes it has gotten much hotter than this in past ages, but it is the
rate of change that is of concern here. Typically, change occurs over a longer
period of time giving nature a chance to adapt and find new ways of maintaining life on
the planet. The current rate of change is too fast for this slow process. Maybe nature
will make sudden changes to overcome this rapid change, maybe not. Maybe we can survive
this and maybe not. Does the earth care if we do or don't? Not really. Do we really want
to risk an uncertain future where our children may suffer and not realize the same quality
of life we take for granted? Not me. Not when we have alternative means to do the things
that currently use materials, which are threatening the future.
"Well if the ice melts at the poles, there isn't a problem since when Ice melts, it
doesn't raise the level of water. Simple science rules... "
Wow, what high school did you go to? Maybe you were
cutting class to smoke Pot the day they taught displacement in science class. Here is a
simple experiment for you to try. Yes do this at home. Fill two glasses with ice. Then
pour water into one until all the ice floats and the other only half way, with the top of
the ice well above the level of the water. With a marker, draw a line at the water level
on each glass. Now, cover the top with plastic wrap to prevent evaporation from affecting
the results. Leave both glasses on the counter for an hour. When the ice is all melted
take a look at the results. The glass that had the floating ice has no change in the water
level. The glass where the ice was piled up above the water shows that the water level is
above the line.
So why is this you may ask? Simple displacement in the case of the floating ice. The ice
may have less density than the water but has the same mass. That means that the ice will
displace the same volume of water as it will when melted. Why did the water in the other
glass rise? Because not all the ice was in the water. So no displacement occurred.
As the ice melted it drained into the water adding to the total volume. This caused the
water to rise above the line you drew earlier. In both cases the amount of water in the
glass remained the same but the relationship between the water and the ice was different.
So how does this apply to the earth and global warming? The ice at the North Pole floats
on the water and therefore will have no effect on water levels. But the ice on Greenland
and on Antarctica is partly on the land and so isn't fully displacing the water. As it
melts it will drain into the ocean just as the ice in the glass that was half filled with
water. So you see the overall effect will be a rise in water level. This is Jr. High
School science.
Next, the Ozone. To start with, the ozone hole is over the South Pole and extends over
Australia in their summer. Ozone blocks UV radiation, which damages organic tissue. This
ozone is very slow to make. Yes, ozone is created by thunderstorms. However much of
the ozone generated doesn't last very long. In the atmosphere, ozone is short lived. This
is why the ozone created by internal combustion engines will not help replenish the ozone
layer. It never gets to the upper layers of the atmosphere before breaking down. Since we
have alternative means of doing the things we want that will not destroy the ozone, why
don't we just use these instead?
Also if you were thinking "so what if the ozone disappears we can use sun block or
stay indoors," think about this. If the rock a building stands on turns to sand and
can no longer support the foundation of the building, the building comes down. Do you want
to be on the top floor of this building? You are. We as a species are on the top floor of
the building of life. If the plankton in the oceans (especially the Antarctic Ocean) and
the bacteria on the soil die, then so too will all life on earth. They are the bottom of
the food chain. If they die then the next level dies. Then the next and so on. (plankton
die then fish die then we die) You say you don't like fish? How about if the
bacteria in the soil dies, then the earthworms will die, then insects which live in the
soil dies, then small animals which eat the insects die then large insects die then
animals which eat the large insects die, then larger animals which eat smaller animals
die, then we die. You say you are a vegetarian? The nitrogen fixing bacteria
in the soil dies, the bacteria which helps earthworms live, dies, the bacteria that breaks
down vegetation and returns it to rebuild the soil, dies, eventually the vegetation
becomes sterile and the vegetation leaches all the nitrogen out of the soil. All
vegetarians, frutarians, lacto vegetarians, and omnivores will die if the ozone
disappears. There is neither sun block to prevent that nor any indoor facility big enough
to protect these most essential members of the building of life.
And what's wrong with people making a buck on environmentalism? Are you some kind of
Nut!!?
You think it's ok for Big Business to make money from
destroying the environment, but working to curb its destruction should be done for free?
If I come up with another way of doing something and can make a buck from it,
then that is capitalism. If it helps save the world, wonderful! Who has any right to
condemn my motivation for the product?"
Melting Ice to Hit People
Worldwide
Global warming that is melting ice and snow
will affect hundreds of millions of people around the globe by disrupting rivers in Asia,
thawing Arctic ice and raising ocean levels, a UN report said.
Glaciers from the Himalayas to the Alps are in retreat,
permafrost from Alaska to Siberia is warming and snowfalls are becoming unreliable in many
regions, according to a Global Outlook for Ice and Snow written by more than 70 experts.
And it said the changes, widely blamed on greenhouse gases released by mankind's
use of fossil fuels, would be felt far from polar regions or high mountain areas.
"Fate of the world's snowy and icy places as a
result of climate change should be cause for concern in every ministry, boardroom and
living room across the world," said Achim Steiner, head of UN Environment Program of
the 238-page report.
He said the findings were relevant "from Berlin to
Brasilia, and Beijing to Boston".
The report said that about 40 per cent of the world's 6.5
billion population would be affected by retreating glaciers in Asia - snow and ice in the
Himalayas, for instance, help regulate river flows and irrigation from China to India.
And a one-metre rise in world sea levels, linked to expansion of the oceans as they
warm and melt from glaciers, could cause almost $US950 billion ($A1.15 trillion) in damage
and expose 145 million people to flooding, it said.
Oceans rose by almost 20cm last century and UN studies
project a further rise of 18-59cm by 2100. Asia would be hard hit by rising seas,
especially low-lying Bangladesh, the report said. The snow and ice report was
released on the eve of World Environment Day, and two days before a June 6-8 summit by the
leaders of the world's top eight industrial powers in Germany.
"The world cannot afford simply to discuss climate
change. It has to act," Steiner said.
The report said there were big uncertainties about the
fate of ice on Greenland and Antarctica, the world's main stores of fresh water.
Greenland contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 7 metres, Antarctica by about 60
metres.
And less snow is falling in many areas, with a 1.3 per
cent decline per decade since the 1960s in the northern hemisphere. A one degree
Celsius temperature rise would raise the snow line in the Alps by 150 metres, for
instance, damaging ski resorts and tourism.
And lifestyles were already changing. Hunters in
Qeqertarsuaq in western Greenland were turning to use motorboats rather than dogsleds
because the sea ice was no longer solid. Polar bears are among animals under threat
from shrinking ice.
The report said the rise in temperatures "has not
yet resulted in widespread permafrost thawing."
Even so, the report said the quantity of methane being
released from permafrost in Siberia may already be five times more than previously
supposed. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas stored in vast quantities in
permafrost.
Among benefits from melting ice, a northern sea route
along the coast of Russia could be open for 120 days a year by 2100 against 30 now.
And the report pointed to dangers of abrupt floods linked
to a melting of glaciers that have blocked lakes. In 1998 a so-called glacier lake
outburst flood killed more than 100 people in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.
©AAP 2007
Big area of Antarctica melted in
'05, study finds
Water later refroze, but incident seen as potential
warning signal
NASA/JPL via AFP-Getty Images
This satellite-based image of Antarctica shows areas in
red and yellow that were found to have warmed significantly in January 2005.
Extensive areas of snow melted in west
Antarctica in January 2005 in response to warm temperatures, researchers reported in a new
study, describing the melt as "the most significant" ever observed in the 30
years satellites have been used to track such changes.
The
affected areas encompass a combined area as big as California.
"Antarctica
has shown little to no warming in the recent past with the exception of the Antarctic
Peninsula, but now large regions are showing the first signs of the impacts of warming as
interpreted by this satellite analysis," study co-leader Konrad Steffen said in a
statement.
"Increases
in snowmelt, such as this in 2005, definitely could have an impact on larger scale melting
of Antarctica's ice sheets if they were severe or sustained over time," added
Steffen, director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at
the University of Colorado, Boulder.
About 90
percent of the world's fresh water is locked in the thick ice sheets that cover west and
east Antarctica. If just the smaller west sheet melts, scientists estimate it could cause
a 15-foot rise in world sea levels. Even a three-foot sea level rise could cause havoc in
coastal and low-lying areas around the globe, according to a recent World Bank study.
The team
used a NASA satellite to measure snowfall accumulation and melt in Antarctica and
Greenland from July 1999 through July 2005. The satellite sent radar pulses to the ice,
measuring the echoed pulses that bounce back. That data was compared over time to detect
changes. Ground station measurements validated the satellite results.
Odd areas
of melt
In a statement, NASA said that the melt was widespread, "including far inland, at
high latitudes and at high elevations, where melt had been considered unlikely. Evidence
of melting was found up to 560 miles inland from the open ocean, farther than 85 degrees
south (about 310 miles from the South Pole) and higher than 6,600 feet above sea
level."
The areas
included a vast stretch of the Ross Ice Shelf abutting the Transantarctic Mountain range.
That shelf is the size of Texas and would lead to major glacier flows into the ocean were
it to collapse.
That melt
area is right at the border between the ice shelf and the mountain, it's kind of like a
hinge," study co-leader Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena,
Calif., told msnbc.com. "If that hinge is weakened it might have a dynamic effect on
the ice shelf. It's still a hypothesis, but it's something we have to look into."
Referring
to the overall melting, NASA added that "maximum air temperatures at the time of the
melting were unusually high, reaching more than 41 F in one of the affected areas. They
remained above melting for approximately a week" in January, which is the height of
the Southern Hemisphere's summer.
The 2005
melt was not long enough for the melt water to flow into the ocean but it did create an
extensive ice layer when water refroze after the melt. And some of that melt water is
thought too have made its way through ice cracks, possibly affecting how ice sheets move.
"Water
from melted snow can penetrate into ice sheets through cracks and narrow, tubular glacial
shafts called moulins," Steffen said. "If sufficient melt water is available, it
may reach the bottom of the ice sheet. This water can lubricate the underside of the ice
sheet at the bedrock, causing the ice mass to move toward the ocean faster, increasing sea
level."
Call for
more studies
While no further melting had been detected through March 2007, the researchers said it
could well happen again.
"It
is vital we continue monitoring this region to determine if a long-term trend may be
developing," Nghiem said. "We need to know what's coming in and going out of the
ice sheets."
The
peer-reviewed study, "Snow accumulation and snowmelt monitoring in Greenland and
Antarctica," appears in the just published book "Dynamic Planet."
|