WHAT SEEMS LIKELY BASED ON WHAT WE'VE SEEN

Once again, the power of the U.S. corporate media to hide the truth, and control the discourse on their terms, is illustrated by the following article, published by a more left-leaning U.K. newspaper. But seen nowhere in the mainstream media in this country, unfortunately, since it is highly important.

Published on Monday, November 23, 2009 by The Independent/UK

Antarctic Ice Loss Vaster, Faster Than Thought: Study

The East Antarctic icesheet, once seen as largely unaffected by global warming, has lost billions of tonnes of ice since 2006 and could boost sea levels in the future, according to a new study.

Scientists believe that Antarctica could lose more ice than Greenland within a few years. (Photograph: Momatiuk-Eastcott/Corbis)Published Sunday in Nature Geoscience, the same study shows that the smaller but less stable West Antarctic icesheet is also shedding significant mass.

Scientists worry that rising global temperatures could trigger a rapid disintegration of West Antarctica, which holds enough frozen water to push up the global ocean watermark by about five metres (16 feet).

In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) predicted sea levels would rise 18 to 59 centimetres (7.2 to 23.2 inches) by 2100, but this estimate did not factor in the potential impact of crumbling icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica.

Today many of the same scientist say that even if heat-trapping CO2 emissions are curtailed, the ocean watermark is more likely to go up by nearly a metre, enough to render several small island nations unlivable and damage fertile deltas home to hundreds of millions.

More than 190 nations gather in Copenhagen next month to hammer out a global climate deal to curb greenhouse gases and help poor countries cope with its consequences.

University of Texas professor Jianli Chen and colleagues analysed nearly seven years of data on ocean-icesheet interaction in Antarctica.

Covering the period up January 2009, the data was collected by the twin GRACE satellites, which detect mass flows in the ocean and polar regions by measuring changes in Earth's gravity field.

Consistent with earlier findings based on different methods, they found that West Antarctica dumped, on average, about 132 billion tonnes of ice into the sea each year, give or take 26 billion tonnes.
They also found for the first time that East Antarctica - on the Eastern Hemisphere side of the continent - is likewise losing mass, mostly in coastal regions, at a rate of about 57 billion tonnes annually.
The margin or error, they cautioned, is almost as large as the estimate, meaning ice loss could be a little as a few billion tonnes or more than 100.

Up to now, scientists had thought that East Antarctica was in "balance," meaning that it accumulated as much mass and it gave off, perhaps a bit more.

"Acceleration of ice loss in recent years over the entire continent is thus indicated," the authors conclude. "Antarctica may soon be contributing significantly more to global sea level rise."

Another study published last week in the journal Nature reported an upwardly-revised figure for Antarctic temperatures during prior "interglacials", warm periods such as our own that have occurred roughly every 100,000 years.

During the last interglacial which peaked some 128,000 years ago, called the Eemian Period, temperatures in the region were probably six degree Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than today, which is about 3 C (5.4 C) above previous estimates, the study said.

The findings suggest that the region may be more sensitive than scientists thought to greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere that were roughly equivalent to present day levels.  [due to volcanism then, it is thought, eds.].

During the Eemian, sea levels were five-to-seven metres higher than today [Higher than most of Florida!, eds].

© 2009 The Independent

 

Ok, folks, let's look at this. What this research is saying, is that the last time the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was 390 ppm, which is what it is today (up from 280 ppm 60 years ago), 128,000 years ago, sea levels were 18 to 25 feet (5 to 7 metres) higher than they are today. This was due to naturally occurring volcanism, it is thought, and it is unknown how rapidly they rose to this level. But what would this mean, a sea level, that much higher? If it were to occur relatively quickly, say within 20-30 years (or even 10), could humanity adapt? Because all the major seaports and their infrastructure would be underwater, which is where and how the bulk of the global food and energy is distributed. Would all the different countries be able to rebuild all the transport and distribution facilities on higher ground that quickly? If not, shortages of food and energy would cause great hardship, and could lead to societal collapse, in many areas. It's not inconceivable that this rapid of a sea-level rise could occur. Research is also showing that the Greenland Ice Cap is shrinking rapidly, especially on the coastal margins. And that large areas of it could collapse quite quickly, within a matter of a few years, which could raise sea levels on it's own, by a few metres. Which would quickly drown many areas like Bangladesh, and low-elevation island countries in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

So far, all the global climate models have been too slow in predicting things like the decreasing Arctic summer sea ice, changes are occurring more rapidly.

Here are some things your lead editor has seen in my 23 years of experience as a professional meteorologist, tracking the day to day weather, and studying the climate of North America, and the rest of the World.

1. Summers are longer, warmer, and drier, throughout the Western U.S., Western Canada, and Alaska. Leading to increasing trends in wildfire acreages in all these areas. Sensitive high-elevation tree species like Subalpine Fir and Lodgepole Pine have been decimated by bug infestations and diseases, caused by drought and warmer winters. Lower elevation tree species like Douglas Fir, are moving up in elevation. Increasing wildfire acreages are in themselves, a positive feedback to the climate system, since more CO2 is released.

2. Winters are slightly shorter, but have much greater swings in temperature in the higher latitudes, than even just 30-40 years ago. More frequent southerly flow/high pressure ridging episodes occur between cold spells now, raising average temperatures. Since less of the deep cold air forms here, less is transported south into southern Canada, and the U.S. Leading to warmer winters there, and skimpier mountain snowpacks in the West. Which in turn aggravate drought conditions, since they melt off earlier, weakening the more sensitive forest species, and leaving them more vulnerable to bugs and diseases.

3. More frequent droughts, and floods. Long-term warming manifests in the short-term of daily and weekly weather as stronger, and more persistent high pressure ridging. Exactly like our first-ever near-rainless July this year here in Fairbanks. If a high pressure ridge parks over an area for a month, as it did over interior Alaska this past July, you have warm, dry conditions. To either side of a stationary high pressure ridge, there are low pressure troughs. Containing cool, wet weather. If these persist long enough over an area, there can be heavy rains and flooding. Think of the climate patterns we had 20 years ago, as moving north, and more rapidly now, in the coming decades. The climate of Southern California 20 years from now will likely be similar to what is seen in central Baja California. The climate of Northern California and Southern Oregon, then, will be more like what is now seen in Southern California. The climate of Idaho and Montana, will become more like that seen in southern Nevada, and Northern Arizona/Southern Utah. Don't even ask what southern Arizona will become like! These are the trends that are occurring, and which will amplify, since we will see an increase to 500-550 ppm CO2 now in just 25 years or so.

The tragic fires in Australia last February, documented in our article:

http://akprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/03/warning-lights-are-flashing-australia.html

serve as a stark warning of what will become more the norm, in a few decades. An unprecedented heat wave there, combined with strong winds to create fire behaviour not ever likely seen by humans for many thousands of years. Fire plumes burning through their thick, volatile Eucalypt forests reached into the stratosphere, 18 KM, generating lightning, which started more fires. Temperatures were 38-48C (100-116F, with relative humidities of 2-6%), combined with winds of 40-80 km/hr. Fire Danger ratings of 50-80, which is considered extreme, soared to unprecedented levels of 200-300, causing their Bureau of Meteorology to have to change the scale, incorporating a "Catastrophic" category now, for ratings above 100. These kind of conditions there will become much more frequent in the next few decades.

 

Here in North America, similar trends are occurring. We've burnt 6.4 million hectares (16 million acres) from wildfires in Alaska since 2004. 11 million in 2004 and 2005 alone. During the extremely large fire season of 2007 in Idaho/Montana, 35 days occurred in Missoula, where the temperature reached or exceeded 95F (35C), and 11 days, where 100F (38C) was reached or exceeded. In the 8 years I lived there, from 1990-98, I saw it reach 100F, just once! The average July and August high temperature in Missoula is 29C (84F).

 

So we will be seeing conditions like this increasing in frequency, and duration, over the next few decades. That's the reality folks. Since the climate conferences in Copenhagen produced very little of substance, guaranteeing at least a 3C rise in global average temperature by mid-Century:

Copenhagen: Just a Cop Out?

Despite its disappointments, the climate summit in Copenhagen marks a turning point—the end of denial. What's next is recognizing that our climate problem is really a justice problem.

by Tom Athanasiou

Copenhagen was obviously a failure—if you judge it by "the numbers," the formal emission targets and financial commitments that are needed to support a fair, effective, emergency global climate mobilization. If you judge it, that is, by what is necessary.

The more pressing question, though, is whether Copenhagen was a failure when judged against what was possible. This is a much more difficult question, and has far more to do with judgment than with calculation. And much more to do with the immediate future of climate politics.

The good news is that the truth is coming out, and that people all over the world are seeing it. Everyone, and I imagine this includes Barack Obama, knows a hell of a lot more about the climate crisis, and its politics, than they did a year ago. Not, to be sure, that we didn't already know that climatic destabilization is triggering a planetary emergency. This has been obvious for years. The difference now is rather that—thanks to the 350 movement, and here I mean not only the folks at 350.org, but also Mohamed Nasheed, the President of Tuvalu and a whole lot of terrified scientists—we know that we know it. And that we know it with appalling, quantitative confidence.

The bad news is that after Copenhagen, we also know that the elites are at their limits. That what is needed, as the Copenhagen street had it, is "system change not climate change," and that lacking system change, our governments are quite incapable of organizing a decisive response to the climate crisis. The bad news, more particularly, is that if we in "civil society" are to do better than our putative leaders, if indeed we are to help the elites break their own chains of powerlessness, we're going to have to actually dare to assign a bit of responsibility for the Copenhagen fiasco. The bulk of which, alas, will have to go to the wealthy world.

The NGOs grouped into CAN, the Climate Action Network International tried to come to Copenhagen prepared. They even had a scenario analysis close at hand, one that categorized the possible outcomes with names like Breakthrough, Foundation, Greenwash, and Collapse. It was a useful exercise, but the power of the Copenhagen drama, as it finally played itself out, defeated all attempts at easy characterization. I suppose that if you had to pin it down, the outcome would have to be placed somewhere between Greenwash and Collapse. Or, to put a finer gloss on it, in the "not done yet" territory, which is how CAN decided to frame the result.

Looking at the generalities of the Copenhagen Accord and the 2010 negotiating schedule, this may be fair enough. Obama himself took the same line, in a late-night press conference that was actually pretty badly received, calling the accord a "meaningful agreement", but adding that "This progress is not enough," and "We have come a long way, but we have much further to go." Which is a fairly obvious point, given that the accord, such as it is, seems (see for example the Climate Scorecard) to condemn us to about 3.9 degrees Celsius of warming. This is the "Four Degree World" scenario, and it's a fairly magnificent understatement to say that we want to avoid it at almost all costs.

But of course Copenhagen is not the end of the game. The negotiations will continue, as will the organizing, and with the next major climate conference scheduled for Mexico City in November of 2010, they are quite certain to have a major impact on the United States. And if, in the meanwhile, we in America can manage to pass halfway decent climate and energy legislation, we may yet discover that the Obama strategy—which John Holdren, his chief science adviser, characterized during Copenhagen as, simply, "getting started"—offers a plausible way forward, one that can make real progress even in a nation overtaken by insane right-wing ideologues.

The difficulty here is that understanding can too easily degenerate into accommodation. Yes, we are paralyzed by our right wing, and yes this constrains our choices, but the fact remains that, by not paying our way, by refusing to accept anything like our proper share of the responsibility for the crisis now threatening to overcome us, we make the dithering and dysfunction inevitable. Which of course brings us to the equity side of the story, and here there are several key points to report.

One is that, in a signal development, several self-defined vulnerable country blocs emerged in Copenhagen to play extremely significant roles, and managed to do so while protecting not only their local interests, but the interests of the developing countries as a whole. The first of these vulnerable blocs, of course, was AOSIS, the Association of Small Island States, which face rising seas and, in extreme cases like Tuvalu, actual short-term inundation. But Africa, which has discovered the extent of its own vulnerability, also played a critical role, and by so doing helped to protect the South as a whole from being blamed for Copenhagen's failure to deliver.

Not that the right-wing press won't blame it anyway, but at this point I doubt that the gambit has real legs. For while the African people are among the world's most innocent, in terms of their historical contributions to the climate crisis, they will also be among the most brutally impacted, and this is an injustice too obvious to easily set aside. Witness the open letter that Desmond Tutu sent to all heads of state during Copenhagen, a letter that noted that:

"If temperatures are not kept down then Africa faces a range of devastating threats such as crop yield reductions in places of as much 50 percent in some countries by 2020; Increased pressure on water supplies for 70-250 million people by 2020 and 350-600 million by 2050; The cost of adaptation to sea level rises of at least 5-10 percent of gross domestic product."

With these sorts of prospects at hand, it's difficult to be too sympathetic to the North's domestic political problems. Which is why—and this might perhaps just be wishful thinking—I believe that the rich world will fail to effectively evade responsibility for Copenhagen. There are counter-arguments, of course, and gross media distortions by the score, but so far the failure to reach a better deal is not being blamed wholly on the South. And given that the large "emerging economies" signed onto the accord, it's unlikely that it will be.

Indeed, given the wealthy world's failure to adopt strong domestic emission reduction targets, and its equally egregious failure to put a decent mitigation or adaptation support package onto the table, the Copenhagen endgame—in which the emerging economies agreed to the Accord while the weaker and more vulnerable states balked-may well have been the best possible outcome. (Watch the final, 3:10 a.m. plenary here; you won't regret it!)

In this regard, it may not be absurd to hope that, as Copenhagen passes into history, the overall framework by which we understand rich-world commitments will shift in significant ways. For one thing, and despite a clear desire to do so (it inconveniently requires them to "act first" to significantly reduce their emissions) the rich countries did not succeed in setting the Kyoto Protocol aside. But while Copenhagen laid out a two-track negotiating process, including a "Convention track" in which both the US and China can, perhaps, both be eventually coaxed into accepting their fair shares of the global effort, the "Kyoto track" has also been extended. This gives us a clear mandate—to continue the battle to force the wealthy countries to make commitments on the scale demanded by the science, and by their own historical responsibility and capacity to pay—and just as importantly it gives us a context within which to do so.

The road ahead is clear enough. The next big date is February 1, 2010, by which time countries of all kinds are expected to pledge their emissions reductions. When they do, the battles will predictably, and quite properly, flare up all over again.

For the moment, let me add only that Copenhagen, for all its disappointments, marked a turning point. The need for a global emergency mobilization is obvious, and with it, a set of social and political challenges that can no longer be denied. These challenges will get clearer in the days and years ahead, but the essential situation is already before us, ready to be discovered—with the atmosphere's ability to absorb carbon now critically limited, we face the greatest resource-sharing problem of all time.

The climate problem, in other words, was and remains a justice problem. If we fail to solve it, it will be in large part because we refuse to see it as such.

Tom Athanasiou wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Tom is the author of Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor, and co-author (with Paul Baer) of Dead Heat: Global Justice and Global Warming. He is the executive director of EcoEquity, a core member of the Greenhouse Development Rights team, and a coauthor of The Greenhouse Development Rights Framework: The right to development in a climate constrained world.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Is all hope lost? Are we doomed to see 3-5C or greater temperature increases globally, with sea levels rising 5 or 10 metres, or more, in several decades (and all the ensuing problems resulting from that)? There are some good ideas out there, like Dr. James Hansen's proposal, outlined here, again in the British media, but not in the U.S.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/27-2

As long as Corporate-dominated media continues to distort reality, and as long the bulk of the population in this, and other countries, gets their information from it, it will be very difficult to force politicians to regulate capitalism and sponsor renewable energy development and implementation. All the countries, cultures, and religions of the World are going to have to trust each other, and work together, to prevent the worst effects from occurring, and soon, within ten years. If not, this is what we'll see. This is an amazing bit of science fiction, written in 1973 by Ursula K. Leguin, in a book called The Dispossessed.  About a planet in the Tau Ceti star system, 11 light years from Earth, which has an Earth-like planet named Urras, and a barely-inhabitable moon about it, called Annarres, which was settled by radical socialist/anarchists. In this passage, the main character, from the Anarchist moon, on the run from the Urran authorities, talks with the Terran Ambassador, hundreds of years in our future, who explains what happened on her (our) planet, in her (our) past:

"Now, you man from a world I cannot even imagine, you who see my paradise (Urras) as hell, will you ask what my world must be like?"

"My world (Earth), is a ruin. A planet spoiled by the human species. We multiplied and gobbled and fought until there was nothing left, and then we died. We controlled neither appetite nor violence; we did not adapt. We destroyed ourselves. But we destroyed the World first. There are no forests left on my world, Earth. The air is grey, it is always hot. It is habitable, it is still habitable, but not as this world is. This is a living world, a harmony. Mine is a discord. You Odonians (on Annares) chose a desert; we Terrans made a desert.... We survive there, as you do. People are tough! There are nearly a half billion of us now. Once there were nine billion. You can see the old cities still everywhere. The bones and bricks go to dust, but the little pieces of plastic never do-they never adapt either. We failed as a species, as a social species. We are here now, dealing as equals with other human societies on other worlds, only because of the charity of the Hainish. They came; they brought us help. They built ships and gave them to us, so we could leave our ruined world."

This is what our future holds, unless we all decide to do something about it. Cheers.