Sun Editorial:

The Arctic in peril

Brookings expert warns UNLV audience against ‘doing nothing’ to reverse warming

Monday, Oct. 19, 2009 | 2:04 a.m.

Three studies published this year contain information about Arctic melting that cannot be described in any way other than frightening.

Two of the studies were released last month and reviewed in articles by The Washington Post.

One was researched by a team of 30 scientists from the United States, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Canada and Finland and primarily written by Northern Arizona University professor Darrell Kaufman.

Its conclusion, that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions over the past several decades have rendered the Arctic region warmer than at any time since 1 B.C., was published by the prestigious journal Science.

The other study released last month was produced by the World Wildlife Federation. It concluded that warming in the Arctic could shift global weather patterns and affect agriculture, forestry and water supplies in the United States, Europe and elsewhere.

A third study was released in April by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Washington. According to the Associated Press, the study concluded that Arctic sea ice is melting so fast that most of it could be gone in 30 years. With little ice to reflect sunlight back into space, the Arctic Ocean will just get warmer, leading to an acceleration of warming around the world, the study said.

That the situation is dire was echoed last week by Charles Ebinger, who leads an energy initiative at the Brookings Institution. He spoke to an audience at UNLV about the worldwide consequences if warming continues at its current pace.

The Las Vegas Sun’s Stephanie Tavares reported that Ebinger outlined many of the worst-case scenarios, including the worst of all — drastic changes in global weather and the inundation of highly populated areas as Arctic ice liquefies.

On a hopeful note, though, Ebinger said Nevada could play a key role in helping to avoid this fate. He said this state’s vast renewable energy potential could be tapped, replacing some of the current greenhouse-gas-emitting power sources with those that produce emissions-free electricity.

He strongly warned against doing nothing, a warning we should start taking seriously.

Discussion: 14 comments so far…

By enteaser

10/19/09 at 6:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

This article is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. It's a scientific fact that global temps have been stable over the past 11 years...that's right, there has been NO global warming over the past 11 years. And in those same 11 years, CO2 has continued to rise. This man-made global warming is a hoax; climate change is a natural cycle upon which man has little to no affect.
By mschaffer

10/19/09 at 6:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

enteaser,
Please post the actual research supporting your assertion and not just some newspaper nonsense. Keep in mind that the actual data sets come from legitimate science organizations such as this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/
And here:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/
By Sunlizard

10/19/09 at 7:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Than of course, the millions of destroyed acres of energy sprawl will endanger the ecosystems in Nevada. But you guys don't care about that. I don't even think you care about the Artic. You are shills for energy developers and won't even address the problems. Your only decent reporter left.

Like a lot of folks these days, I don't read the Sun for facts. (nor would I ever actually buy this rag) There are far netter news organizations for that. The Sun is good for examining the political brainwashing attempts of the press. It's good to know that you are the propaganda specialists for developers.

Look up natural gas base load and tell me that your large scale renewables will not produce greenhouse gases. You guys don't give a s*it about the Artic...
By rusty57

10/19/09 at 7:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Meanwhile in the Antarctic:

The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history. Such was the finding reported last week by Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan in the journal Geophysical Research Letters: A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008--2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980--2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008--2009 melt season.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index....
By mikegino

10/19/09 at 9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Its funny how Chicken Little has focused on the Artic after this year's uneventful hurricane season. Are the envirowackos still predicting a deluge of acid rain anytime soon?
By enteaser

10/19/09 at 9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

mschaffer,
From your own link...http://data.giss.nasa.gov/

"Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation
Originally posted Dec. 16, 2008, with meteorological year data. Updated Jan. 13, 2009, with calendar year data.

Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies"
By mschaffer

10/19/09 at 10:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

enteaser,
You do know the difference between climate and weather right? You do know why a single year does not a trend make right? You do know why scientists term weather as noisy when looking for climate signals right? You do know the difference between average and the outliers on a curve right?
Actually, you don't.
By mschaffer

10/19/09 at 10:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Further debunking of the ignorant argument asserting no warming since 1998:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
I wonder why world climate report lied about the paper rusty57 was eager to quote?
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/20...
Look at the second paper:
Tedesco, M., M. Brodzik, R. Armstrong, M. Savoie, and J. Ramage
Pan arctic terrestrial snowmelt trends (1979-2008) from spaceborne passive microwave data and correlation with the Arctic Oscillation
Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2009GL039672, in press.
[PDF] (accepted 15 September 2009)
Thomas, E. R., P. F. Dennis, T. J. Bracegirdle, and C. Franzke
Ice core evidence for significant 100-year regional warming on the Antarctic Peninsula
Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2009GL040104, in press.
[PDF] (accepted 23 September 2009)
By odeman

10/19/09 at 11:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Thought mschaffer was off his feed today, but eventually he did not disappoint. Waited until the last moment to post a reference from realclimate.bs.

Get ready for all kinds of propaganda from the warmers as Copenhagen is 2 months away. The one world supporters are hoping that the US can be delivered to the climate change woodshed to get the stuffing beat out of it by the intellectual idiots. If you think things are bad now, wait for cap and trade. If they get cap and trade, they plan on going after USA companies who manufacture or buy from overseas and nail them for being carbon dirty as they can't do anything to China and India. Hang onto your socks cause there won't be any jobs to hang onto. Kill the domestic and import industries in one swoop.

Yes the earth is, or was, warming. But there is no proof that humans are doing it. According to Henrys Law, a 200 year old chemistry law that has not been disproven, the amount of a gas dissolved in water decreases as the temperature of the water rises. As the earth has warmed, and the water with it, more C02 is released into the air from the oceans. That's why C02 levels have risen along with temperatures. According to big Al and his apostles, the rise in C02 caused the warming, humans create C02, thus humans did it. This is their only proof. One unproven correlation while they downplay correlations like cloud formation and sunspot activity.

If there were 30 times more C02 in the air than there is now, the amount of C02 in the atmosphere would be around 1 percent. Water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse gases, yet it's man made C02 that is the enemy. It doesn't add up except in the eyes of those looking at that 10 trillion dollar prize awaiting those who will "stop" climate change.
By odeman

10/19/09 at 11:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Satellite records on ice for the Arctic and Antarctic have only been kept since 1979. In the Antarctic the amount of ice there is the most since records have been kept. In the Arctic, much has been made about the 2007 summer sea ice extent being the lowest since the records have been kept. What the alarmists and their current propaganda do not tell us, is that the Arctic ice extent has expanded greatly each of the last 2 years. This fact is blowing holes in all the garbage about the Artic ice will disappear in the next few years.

One other fact Al's poster boys are lying about. They claim if the Arctic melts completely the oceans would rise drastically. Arctic ice is sea ice. It's already in the water and if it melts the oceans would not rise at all.
By mschaffer

10/20/09 at 12:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Hey odeman,
I missed your research papers and science background. Could you post what your expertise is to disagree with every single nationally recognized science institution on climate?
As for gasses dissolved in water:
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/...
"Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem
Scott C. Doney,1 Victoria J. Fabry,2 Richard A. Feely,3 and Joan A. Kleypas4
1Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543; email: sdoney@whoi.edu
2Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, San Marcos, California 92096; email: fabry@csusm.edu
3Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington 98115; email: Richard.A.Feely@noaa.gov
4Institute for the Study of Society and Environment, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80307; email: kleypas@ucar.edu

Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily from human fossil fuel combustion, reduces ocean pH and causes wholesale shifts in seawater carbonate chemistry. The process of ocean acidification is well documented in field data, and the rate will accelerate over this century unless future CO2 emissions are curbed dramatically. Acidification alters seawater chemical speciation and biogeochemical cycles of many elements and compounds. One well-known effect is the lowering of calcium carbonate saturation states, which impacts shell-forming marine organisms from plankton to benthic molluscs, echinoderms, and corals. Many calcifying species exhibit reduced calcification and growth rates in laboratory experiments under high-CO2 conditions. Ocean acidification also causes an increase in carbon fixation rates in some photosynthetic organisms (both calcifying and noncalcifying). The potential for marine organisms to adapt to increasing CO2 and broader implications for ocean ecosystems are not well known; both are high priorities for future research. Although ocean pH has varied in the geological past, paleo-events may be only imperfect analogs to current conditions."
By odeman

10/20/09 at 12:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dr William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences. MS in Meterology, PHD Geophysical Sciences, a man made climate change skeptic, debated Dr Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center For Atmospheric Research and climate alamist in a newpaper debate recently. Dr Trenberth, while not directly answering many of Dr Grays questions, had an interesting answer to the complaint that qualified scientists who are skeptics are not invited to climate discussions and events. Dr Trenberth said "Beliefs that are not consistent with the evidence discredit the person who continues with them, and such a person is less likely to be invited to participate in the events." Isn't science supposed to be looking at all sides? Dr Gray and others as competent as he is and have the credentials and publications to back them up, are told to stay home because their evidence doesn't agree with the prevailing opinion. With the prevailing view, and the potential money flow coming it's way, being the science is settled, whenever debate or discussion does happen to occur the Algores never want to discuss the science. They call the opposition stupid or incompetent. If their "facts" are so overwhelming, Al and his apostles would welcome every debate and challenge as an opportunity to destroy the opposition. Instead they claim the science is settled and there is no possible alternative scenario.

For an alternative website see www.icecap.us. Check out the credentials of those posting there. Check out their articles where they debate the science, show the charts, links to the information they disagree with. Links to other sites pro and con.
By uddeboda

10/20/09 at 8:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Satellite measurments have shown that this autumn has been extremely warm in the North of Canada, North of Greenland and the Northern stretches of Siberia, as much as 12 degs warmer than normal.
The new sea ice that forms each winter is thin ice, no more than 1 to 2 meters thick, and this melts very quickly the following summer together with more of the old ice, so that by 2013 the Arctic should be completely ice free summer time, end of discussion.
By mvannote

10/20/09 at 2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yeah, where's larrylasvegas!? We need more braindead dissertation from the fossil fuel industry disguised as southern Nevadans! Come on Sunlizard, odeman, & enteaser! How are you on every single one of these posts!? You are just THAT concerned that nothing gets done... how's that work? Just checking to make sure we keep up the status quo? Seems weird to me.