Arctic ice melt is changing the world's weather and releasing contaminants into the food chain
source: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2010/02/05/12762921-cp.html
-
-
- JanforGore
- added this
Some 300 scientists from 27 countries spent months on an icebreaker in 2009 studying the effect of climate change in the Arctic and they released their preliminary results Friday at a youth summit in Winnipeg.
David Barber, one of the world's top Arctic researchers, said the rapid sea-ice melt is affecting everything from polar bears to micro-organisms.
"We know we're losing sea ice. The world is all aware of that," said Barber, who holds the Canada research chair in Arctic science at the University of Manitoba. "What you're not aware of is that it has impacts on everything else that goes on in this system. We're just starting to understand that from a scientific perspective."
The expedition discovered there is more open water than ever before in the Arctic, he said. That is creating more cyclones - Arctic storms, characterized by snow and high winds.
The storms further erode the sea ice crucial to the region's ecosystem.
"Those storms are having a very dramatic impact on the sea ice - they are melting the ice from underneath," Barber said. "The other thing the cyclones do is they bring winds with them. Those winds remove snow from the surface but they also break up the ice as well."
Scientists found the loss of that sea ice has both far-reaching and immediate consequences, from boosting temperatures further south to threatening whales and releasing toxic contaminants.
Steve Ferguson, who studied marine mammals on the expedition, said the melting ice has removed a barrier that once kept killer whales and other predators from entering the Arctic. Now there are more killer whales in the region and the loss of ice means there are fewer safe havens from the predator, he said.
Polar bears and other species who live on the ice are running out of room, he added.
"I think we will have ice for a long time, at least for part of the year, but it may only be located in a certain area in the world," said Ferguson, a biologist at the University of Manitoba. "These species are going to be crowded into a small area so that's going to be challenging."
The eroding ice is also threatening mammals in another way - by releasing contaminants into the Arctic food chain. Gary Stern, who studied the level of PCBs and mercury on the expedition, said the contaminants latch on to the increased carbon in the surface water, which is drawn downwards.
The contaminants are then consumed by zooplankton, fish and, eventually, beluga whales.
-
- groups:
- Community, News and Politics, Green, Current Tonight, 6 more
-
- tags:
- Environment, Climate Change, Earth, Future, 13 more
-
-
littledunn_03
-

-
on mail online.com
hotter in the long run, expert predicts
By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 11:51 AM on 10th September 2009
Comments (54)
Add to My StoriesThe world could get colder over the next two decades because of natural changes in the Earth's climate, a leading environmental scientist has warned.
Dr Mojib Latif, one of the world's top climate modellers, believes predictions of imminent global warming may be wrong and that the Earth could be heading for up to 20 years of cooler temperatures.
However, the dip will be temporarily - and the long term trend is still for a warmer planet, he says.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (centre) walks with scientists on the Polar Ice Brim, Norway
'People will say this is global warming disappearing,' he told more than 1,500 climate scientists at the UN's World Climate conference in Geneva last week.
'I am not one of the sceptics. However, we have to ask nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it.'
More...
Futuristic £78m Darwin Centre unveiled which puts scientists on show
Teen invents £23 solar panel that could be solution to world's energy needs..made from human hair
On thin ice? Well it looks OK from here... Polar bear stands to attention for cameraDr Latif, an author of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and climate physicist at the University of Kiel, Germany, is the latest scientist to question short term predictions of global warming.
His model forecasts that a natural cooling trend could dominate over the next decade - offsetting any rise in temperatures caused by humans, New Scientist reports today.
The cooling will be caused by changes in the atmosphere and ocean currents in the North Atlantic - a phenomenon called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation.
Arctic freeze: A small melt-lake near Helheim glacier on south-east Greenland near Sermilik Fjord
Risking the wrath of other climatologists, he said the NAO may have been responsible for some of the rapid rise in temperatures of the last three decades.
'But how much? The jury is still out,' he told the conference.
The NOA is now moving into a pattern than could cool the earth, he said.
However Dr Latif still believes that carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels stored underground for millions of years will still warm the planet in the longer term.
Other climate scientists say predicting short term changes in the climate is still too difficult. Phenomena like the NAO and El Nino - where the Pacific Ocean warms for a few years - can lead to significant changes in temperature.
The world's warmest year in recent history - 1998 - was caused by an unusually strong El Nino.
Vicky Pope of the Met Office said natural variability was as important as the long term warming trend when predicting climate change over the next few years.
'In many ways we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year,' she said.
Dr Pope also warned the conference that the dramatic Arctic ice loss in recent summers was partly a product of natural climate cycles - and not just caused by man-made global warming. Early reports suggest there has been less melting this year than in 2007 and 2008.
Although the warmest year on record was 10 years ago, the Met Office says man-made carbon dioxide emissions are still heating up the planet.
The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997 while the average world temperatures for 2000 to 2008 are almost 0.2C higher than the average for the 1990s.
- 2 years ago
-
littledunn_03
-
-
JanforGore
-
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu9cJ0DOnRc
More on how PCBS and other manmade toxins are moving up the food chain in the Arctic, being exacerbated now by rapid melting of permafrost. It is amazing how some will not even be one bit concerned about how immoral this is. Oh, and for all of those fossil fuel enthusiasts, mercury is spewed from burning coal. So, this is not only about climate change, this is about the level at which we are poisoning our own nest not only for us, but for species that cannot speak for themselves.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
Mark701
-
Talleyrand: Is that what global warming means to you, a carbon tax? Is this what you're real and only objection is i.e. that you don't want to pay a tax? Has your desire not to pay a "tax" completely warped your ability to see what is in front of your nose?
Do you understand WHY you're don't accept the fact the world is warming, because EXXON/Mobil, Shell, Citgo don't want you to accept it. You're the one who has bought into THEIR hype. You and the ones who think like you, are the sheeple i.e. the vast ignorant mass that is so easily conned and then sold down the river by corporate America.
Science has NOTHING to gain from making this claim whereas the aforementioned companies have everything to lose. Do you think those multi-billion dollar entities are going to stand around and do nothing as their investors desert them? No. They will lie, cheat, fabricate, confabulate and even kill if necessary to maintain PROFITS. Then, when the world begins to burn, they'll sit in their centrally air conditioned mansions and say 'who could have known?'. And people like you will deny you had anything to do with this horrific failure of common sense and reason.
All this because you don't want to pay a tax, which if one was ever passed, would be WAY less than you spend on your cell phone bill each month, or even your internet connection.
So I guess my message to you is stop confusing your fundamental selfishness with some form of enlightenment because in my line of work (environmental regulatory), foolish people like you (i.e. fix it as long as it doesn't cost you anything) are a dime a dozen.
- 2 years ago
-
Mark701
-
-
402Chicago
-
Mark701:
First, i'll start by saying I'm impartial to all of this. I have no idea what to believe at this moment in time. I don't know if climate change is happening or not. But I do have one thing i must point out to you.
Many climate change supporters claim that "Science has NOTHING to gain from making this claim". This is blatantly false. Science has a ton to gain from climate change, if it is correct. Federal support of R&D could skyrocket, governments everywhere could give many more awards, grants, tax cuts, etc. for R&D. This could open up jobs for scientists, pay salaries, gain them scientific infrastructure (such as labs and equipment, which then could be used for other R&D, not just climate change), etc. This is one of the only events in which War will not be the cause of high Federal support of R&D. War between nations (total war) has been a major cause of Federal Spending, especially in the United States. In the late 1800s we saw a spike for the Civil War, World War Two there was a tremendous spike, the space program, NASA, was created purely for the Cold War and the race for space dominance, now with dwindling total war (wars have become counter-insurgencies, rebellions, superpowers vs. weaker nations, etc.) Federal R&D support could easily lower. But if there is a large scientific problem which could threaten the security of our nation as a war does, such as climate change, then the government would be forced to help fund R&D. Science gains quite a pay check from climate change if it is true. I wouldn't say that's "nothing" to gain.
Once again, i don't have a stance on the validity of climate change. I'm just making sure that all sides keep all information in perspective. Science does have a lot to gain from climate change, even if they may wish for the best for the environment and world's people, there will come some great benefits on the side.
- 2 years ago
-
402Chicago
-
-
JanforGore
-
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlSh4XeoLBA
The Arctic melting currently taking place due to climate change is not only about polar bears either. It is about cultures and tribes living in this area such as the Inuit, who are experiencing firsthand the effects of this melting on their hunting culture and their very way of life.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
Tayllerand
-
Dont you sheeple read the news ? the whole thing is a scam , remember the emails from the scientists of the UN , they were lying to all of us. They will keep on pushing the idea of global warming HELLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO wake up you sheeple, dont believe everything they tell you. They are lying to you.They want to charge a carbon tax.
- 2 years ago
-
Tayllerand
-
-
JanforGore
-
Tayllerand:
What's the matter? Afraid the truth might be seen by those who otherwise would read the garbage being spewed by people who wouldn't know a scientific fact if it bit them on the a88?
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
Varex_Sythe
-
Tayllerand:
What was funny about those e-mails that climate change/global warming deniers hold onto like a frightened child holding onto a security blanket is that they really didn't prove anything. The e-mails were between the scientists around the world trading information and in some cases, questioning the science because their data didn't fit into the big picture 100% of how they had expected it to. That's science, you're not going to get results that are 100% uniform with what you predict on a scale that is so large. There will be oddball exceptions, and those where what was largely discussed in the few e-mails that actually did seem like e-mails with doubts.
But since deniers are so well versed in the e-mails I'll ask you to inform me. Did any of the e-mails make an outright claim that global warming was a fraud? I'm not looking for potential doubts, I'm asking if in any of the e-mails any of the scientists wrote, "This global warming fraud is going to make us so much money and it isn't even real!"
- 2 years ago
-
Varex_Sythe
-
-
observer2121
-
Global warming is here to stay, I think we have to accept that we are not going to make the changes that will make a difference. What we need to do is start figuring out how we are going to deal with higher sea levels and increased weather variations.
- 2 years ago
-
observer2121
-
-
JanforGore
-
observer2121:
Unfortunately, preparing for adaptation rather than mitigation on the whole is now in order. This is what Copenhagen should have sought to accomplish but as we have seen time and time again, politicians are not the people we need to rely on to solve this. I agree with you that we must be preparing for mass migrations from lands where sea level rise has already occurred and places where glacier melt will interfere with the ability to grow food and sustain the populations that rely on the glaciers for water. This is such a huge issue that we need to be dealing with, but here we are playing tiddly winks with political dupes.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
boiscalm
-
The GOP would rather see the world come to an end as we know it than assist the Dems on passing bills that can make a difference.
- 2 years ago
-
boiscalm
-
-
PigFarmington
-
Wait a minute. It was snowing! In Texas! kidding... (50 degrees in vancouver)
Writing on message boards does nothing. Write your congressman. I doubt it will actually do anything, but people on the current.com message boards sure can't do anything.I fear that nothing will be done until it's too late. Politicians, especially in the US, drag their feet on everything, even when there's public outcry for something. Look at heath care reform... Iraq war... they do what they want until they can't find any more excuses.
I have heard they are actually considering ending any sort of carbon suppression laws because it was snowing this winter! If that's the way laws are created (or ignored) we're all in big trouble.
- 2 years ago
-
PigFarmington
-
-
JanforGore
-
PigFarmington:
I fear that too. It seems humans are now only wired to react when the catastrophe is so huge there is nothing that can be done about it or the solutions aren't enough... and even then, we lose interest when it isn't considered "news worthy" anymore. To see what our actions are doing to this planet and the species that inhabit it and continue to deny it to escape repsonsibility for doing something about it is moral cowardice to the extreme. And I have to also say that it is politics and making this a political issue based on ideology and political party that has now doomed progress in that arena. However, it should not dampen our individual will to continue to advocate for necessary CO2 caps to keep this from getting to a point we truly cannot return from and accountability for the damage done.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
bethopea
-
JanforGore:
Change only comes from catastrophe. Look at the extinction of the dinosaurs which spawned tons of new life forms...after 9/11 people changed, people change after they go through a life changing experience (or life threatening for that matter!)...but changed is short lived if people are not reminded of the troubling times. And, in this case, with all this opposition, people are lead in the direction of the middle ground. And they stay in their own little world where it is safe (for now...)
- 2 years ago
-
bethopea
-
-
tommic
-
Home / Globe / Opinion / Boston Globe Editorials - One week of Editorials Globe Editorial
Congress should take note of Mass. report on cutting carbon
February 16, 2010
CRITICS OF the climate-change bill approved by the House last year insist it will end up costing households far more than the postage-stamp-a-day estimate by federal agencies. And those criticisms are finding a receptive audience among skeptics of government programs, weary of watching costs go up in health care and Social Security. But the history of environmental regulation is quite different from health subsidies and pensions: In most cases technology quickly catches up to environmental rules, making the cost of even substantial improvements in clean air and water far less than initial project.
More evidence of the affordability of reducing greenhouse gas emissions came earlier this month with the report showing that Massachusetts is on target by 2020 to reduce emissions by 18.6 percent below 1990 levels. Much of the reduction comes from the state’s highly cost-effective energy efficiency programs.A copy of the report should be Fed-Exed to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to bolster his support for congressional climate-change legislation. Graham is one of the few GOP senators who has stepped forward to work with Democrats on a bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions, earning him the furious enmity of right-wing groups for daring to break the party’s unified opposition to the Obama agenda. Supporters of a bill were taken aback recently when The New York Times quoted Graham writing off the so-called cap-and-trade plan endorsed by the House and a Senate committee. “Realistically, the cap and trade bills are going nowhere,’’ he was quoted as saying.
Before the day was out, Graham had changed his tune. “To jump-start nuclear power, wind and solar and the green economy, you’ve got to price carbon,’’ he said.
That reassurance comes as a great relief. Even before the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate, it was clear that supporters of climate change legislation would need at least a few Republican votes to offset “no’’ votes from Democrats in states most dependent on high-carbon coal. The legislation is vital: Without it, it would be next to impossible getting fast-growing countries like China and India to reduce their own emissions .
In recent months, GOP committees in two South Carolina counties have voted to censure Graham, in part for his stance on climate change. The senator’s remarks to the Times appeared to be a surrender to his home-state critics. If, instead, the remarks simply indicate a determination to round out a cap and trade agreement with incentives for greater domestic energy production, that is fine - as long as they pass environmental muster.
Hopefully the new Massachusetts report on cost-effective ways to curb emissions - and the proven history of environmental regulations costing less than advertised - can help Graham be a poster child for the bipartisanship that Americans want to see in Washington.
- 2 years ago
-
tommic
-
-
JanforGore
-
tommic:
Energy efficiency is a great part of it. Perhaps businesses would not have to be taxed for Co2 usage if they actually took it upon themselves to take steps to reduce their usage and turn to cleaner energy sources. I get a kick out of people constantly squawking about what such mechanisms will do now. And yes, even though at this time I am not for cap and trade because I think it will take too long to institute and be rife with graft and exploitation, I am for a revenue neutral carbon tax because it is necessary because people do not have the moral courage to do the right thing. We wouldn't need a tax at all if people had that moral courage, but yet it is those who care about solving this crisis that are made out to be the heavies when it should be those jeopardizing our future becauae they are too greedy to change. Sweden has had a carbon tax since the early nineties and it has worked beautifully. It can be done when those involved truly care about making the changes necessary by putting the moral imperative before the wallet and the political expedience. We need that now in this Congress, but I fear it may well be too late for that.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
tommic
-
Climate Change is no Hoax
The gulf stream is slowing, the arctic is thawing, methane is being released in enormous quantities from the permafrost which is thawing in Siberia and now Alaska and the northern reaches of Canada Methane is twenty times more powerful as CO2. Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica is losing sixteen meters per year in depth. Several years ago a chunk of Antarctica the size of the state of Rhode Island broke away. CO2 is at the highest levels in the atmosphere in recorded history. Ocean temperature has risen one degree worldwide with three degrees being catastrophic. The Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than scientist ever thought it would in our lifetime. Droughts are becoming prevalent where they never were. Scientist are alarmed at the rate of change happening around the world and the Republican party is still worried about corporate profits instead of focusing on climate change legislation. The Chinese leadership has acknowledged climate change and altered their own economic goals. Can you say catastrophic, you better because what is happening is we have reached a point of no return we just won't acknowledge it in terms of the earth is undergoing monumental changes that threaten the very existence of mankind. Our failure to act has caught up with us, I feel very sorry for future generations we have let them down in a bigger way than can ever be imagined. - 2 years ago
-
tommic
-
-
JanforGore
-
tommic:
We aren't all letting them down. Look to the other thread here with the BS in it to see who is.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
tommic
-
JanforGore:
All we can do is attempt to be agents of change, hopefully for the better.
But remember one thing not one scientist knows when the point of no return will come
this has never happened in the history of mankind.
That point will come and there will be no turning back what is to come.
Its not alarmist, its reality - 2 years ago
-
tommic
-
-
JanforGore
-
tommic:
So true.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
littledunn_03
-
hey let me ease your mind a bit an do some real research on H.A.A.R.P WANNA STOP GLOBAL WARMING START BY WRITING LETTER TO THE US GOVERMENT.... END LET THEM KNOW THAT THEY NEED TO SHOUT DOWN HAARP.........
- 2 years ago
-
littledunn_03
-
-
JanforGore
-
Oh please, make it stop!
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
courage
-
Please Stop Stop with this nonsense climate must change i found seashells in the mountains atlantis lies at the bottom of the sea ice melts You cant stop it You cant save it You have no control over the damn weather Stop!your guilt your need to feel like you matter isnt worth my liberty.
- 2 years ago
-
courage
-
-
crob80227
-
courage:
That makes no sense, courage.
The Dust Bowl was an environmental disaster....totally man-made!....yet how did that "take away your freedom" when the government worked to repair the damage? How did it "take way your liberty" when we passed common sense agricultural laws to prevent that damage from occuring again?
How would the government letting the mid-west of this country turn into a desert in the 1930's "improve" your life?
- 2 years ago
-
crob80227
-
-
JanforGore
-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/1998-is-not-the-hottest-year-on-record.html
Global warming stopped in 1995? More cherrypicking!
Excerpt:
The argument "global warming stopped in 1998" still enjoys popularity (in fact, #7 on the skeptic leaderboard). The nuanced response to this line of thought is to point out that global warming is fundamentally due to the planet accumulating heat. Direct observations find the planet's total heat content has continued to rise past 1998 (Murphy 2009). Recent ocean heat measurements show the planet has been in positive energy imbalance to the end of 2008 (Schuckmann 2009). Global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, there is a simpler response to the argument that 1998 is the hottest year on record. It's not true. 1998 is not the hottest year on record.The most prominent global temperature records come from the Hadley Centre at the University of East Anglia (HadCRUT), a branch of NASA called the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA GISS) and the National Climatic Data Center which is part of the USA government’s National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Of these three records, only the HadCRUT record shows 1998 as the hottest year on record. While all three records show near identical long term trends, there are differences on a year-to-year basis. GISS and NOAA both find 2005 is the hottest year on record (with 2009 possibly on track to pip 1998 as the second hottest year on record).
A new independent analysis of the HadCRUT record sheds light on this discrepancy. The analysis is by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) who calculated global temperature, utilising a range of sources including surface temperature measurements, satellites, radiosondes, ships and buoys. They found recent warming has been higher than that shown by HadCRUT. This is because HadCRUT is sampling regions that have exhibited less change, on average, than the entire globe.
Figure 1 shows the regions that HadCRUT have sampled compared to the regions ECMWF included in their dataset. The ECMWF analysis shows that in data-sparse regions such as Russia, Africa and Canada, there is strong warming over land that is not included in the HadCRUT's sampling data. This leads the ECMWF to infer with high confidence that the HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming.
Figure 1: Increase in mean near-surface temperature (°C) from (1989-98) to (1999-2008). Top figure shows HadCRUT sampling regions, lower figure shows ECMWF analysis (ECMWF 2009).
This result is not unexpected. NASA GISS found a major contributor to the record hot 2005 was the extreme Arctic warming (Hansen 2006). As there are few meterological stations in the Arctic, NASA extrapolated temperature anomalies from the nearest measurement stations. They found the estimated strong Arctic warmth was consistent with infrared satellite measurements and record low sea ice concentrations.
Figure 2: Surface temperature anomaly for the first half decade of the 21st century (Hansen 2006).For the record, I've updated the "global warming stopped in 1998" page, adding the ECMWF analysis. However, I've still kept the discussion of total heat content as more prominent in the hope that this will lead to greater scientific understanding.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
itoldyouso
-
Some people are selfish and just dont care about the environment or dont educate themselves. I sign petitions and all that good stuff but I always feel like its not enough, but when you do your part and others dont you start to realize how fucked up everything is and you start to lose hope. There is very little one person can do especially at my age (18) I'm just going to continue what I do and hopefully do more as I get older.
- 2 years ago
-
itoldyouso
-
-
JanforGore
-
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTsmOWb7VwM
We took a pristine environment and poisoned it. Shame on us.And now the rapidly melting Arctic is releasing more of these poisons locked in the frozen tundra to be redistributed throughout the food chain to do more damage. Yet, there are those who still claim humans have no impact on this planet.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
JanforGore
-
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4IY4WyYDm8
The Arctic melting is the definition of the frog in boiling water scenario. We ignore it at our peril.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
JanforGore
-
http://news.discovery.com/earth/arctic-carbon-store-warming.html
Arctic losing it's ability to store Co2.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
JanforGore
-
What we do effects all.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
