Climate change is a topic well covered at BooMan Tribune. Steven D has treated us to many great posts on the topic, the latest – I think – was this story a few days ago; Here Yesterday, Gone Today. He quoted from an article in The Guardian which was describing the alarming rate of melting of the Arctic ice cap this summer season:
The Arctic ice cap has collapsed at an unprecedented rate this summer and levels of sea ice in the region now stand at record lows, scientists have announced.
Experts say they are “stunned” by the loss of ice, with an area almost twice as big as the UK disappearing in the last week alone.
So much ice has melted this summer that the Northwest passage across the top of Canada is fully navigable, and observers say the Northeast passage along Russia’s Arctic coast could open later this month.
If the increased rate of melting continues, the summertime Arctic could be totally free of ice by 2030.
Mark Serreze, an Arctic specialist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre at Colorado University in Denver, said: “It’s amazing. It’s simply fallen off a cliff and we’re still losing ice.”
The Arctic has now lost about a third of its ice since satellite measurements began thirty years ago, and the rate of loss has accelerated sharply since 2002.
Dr Serreze said: “If you asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice then I would have said 2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate. It seems that the Arctic is going to be a very different place within our lifetimes, and certainly within our childrens’ lifetimes.”
That is quite unnerving. If you follow this link at Sietch Blog and scroll down a little, you will find some very illuminating images on what has transpired over the last few years. They also state:
It is not just polar bears that will be effected by an ice free arctic, although they most certainly will. All that fresh water could disrupt global sea currents that rely on cold salty water to flow, which could in turn effect weather all over the planet (and not in a good way).
In other words, there is little comfort in the fact that the melting of the Arctic ice cap will not cause sea level rise (since it floats in the ocean). You see, the change in sea water salinity and temperature as the ice melts will cause a change in the major ocean currents:
As this fresh water collects it will slow down the sinking of the salty cold water (because the water will be warmer and fresher), and may stop the conveyor belt altogether. If this happens the wind currents that used to pick up warm moist air from the gulf stream currents (the ones that keep the UK warm) might start to pick up cold air. This could have the effect of freezing out parts of Northern Europe. Meanwhile the heat that the current used to take away from the tropics would stay put causing the tropics to burn. Check out this animation to see what I mean.
So global warming can both effect the strength of wind currents, as well as the temperature of wind currents. Making our climate less predictable, and a lot less pleasant. I hope this helps you understand the link between the temperature of our planet and the wind currents.
And then today, this article in The Guardian (which excellently covers climate change issues):
Melting ice cap triggering earthquakes
The Greenland ice cap is melting so quickly that it is triggering earthquakes as pieces of ice several cubic kilometres in size break off.
Scientists monitoring events this summer say the acceleration could be catastrophic in terms of sea-level rise and make predictions this February by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change far too low.
The glacier at Ilulissat, which supposedly spawned the iceberg that sank the Titantic, is now flowing three times faster into the sea than it was 10 years ago.
(my bold – please read the whole article)
So – we are in for a double whammy – both the Arctic ice cap and the Greenland ice cap melting away at record speed, with unpredictable consequences.
How many more wake-up calls for our politicians to take decisive action?
As DarkSyde noted in his excellent front page story on orange the other day:
I think the people need to wake up too, not just the politicians. Look at the size of the houses being built, and then lived in by small families with huge SUVs. When you can’t even get people to cut back on anything that’s part of their daily life, how can we expect that they’ll push legislators to force them to be more carbon and energy conscious?
I’ve been reading Animal, Vegetable, Miracle by Barbara Kingsolver this week; it’s a book about their ‘adventure’ of eating locally produced foods for a year. One of the most astounding things in the beginning of the book was the explanation that if each family ate just ONE locally grown/organically raised meal per week, it would save 1.1 million BARRELS of oil a week, and that 80% of the energy consumption involved in food production and marketing was spent on transportation (most food in your grocery has traveled about 1,500 miles to get there). Who knew?
Not that any of this answers your question about what it will take to get any action from politicians, but there’s so much contributing to global warming that we never even really think about, much less make an effort to change.
You’re absolutely right, CG!
We must all contribute and cut back on consumption (I know, it’s like swearing in church to advocate a contraction in the economy) – a sustainable global economy is simply not possible given the speed at which we plunder our natural resources.
I posted this link before:
Ecological Footprint Quiz
My own result was shockingly high, and even when I eliminated business related travel, I scored close to 21.
More homework for me.
I remember that quiz. I get a 13, but probably because I have a small house with several people in it, belong to a local CSA, and work from home.
I think Al Gore has done a fantastic job getting people to start thinking about conserving and what a ‘carbon footprint’ is, but we’ve got a ways to go before people atart thinking about the impact of seemingly inocuous choices, like where their food comes from.
And the big house thing has always bothered me. Number one, what a waste of space, and number two, what happens when all these people want to retire and downsize or the conomy takes a downturn? Oh wait, we’re about to find the latter out.
I’ve always wondered why rich people have to build these humongous mansions…I mean you can only live in so many rooms…the rest just seems to be for an ostentatious look at me how rich I am effect. Like Oprah’s mansion in Ca., it’s 23,000 square feet-why does one person need 23,000 square feet(on 42 acres) and that’s just one of her ‘houses’. I wonder how much water is used daily to keep her 42 acres green while she is only there some of the time.
Hi CB & Choc Ink –
I think I saw on 60 Minutes that the average size of the newly built, upscale home in Texas (and many other parts of the country) went from 7000 sq ft in 2005 to 13,000 sq ft in 2006/7. That doesn’t even take into account the cubic foot measurement (for AC, etc.) and I’m sure there are lots of 2-3 story high entrance foyers in those McMansions. Even as a member of the interior design industry I think that’s totally insane. (I get a bad headache imagining the “design” going on there…)
Found this on YouTube:
As a romantic, my favorite scene in the movie is when the wealthy Dr. Zhivago returns home to his mansion to find it filled with people and the guy in charge tells him there was enough room for dozens of families. The good doctor says “Yes, this is much better.” I love that part.
Unfortunately, real change seems to take trillions of personal wake-up calls.