May have already been posted.... In Arctic report card, U.S. cites 'rapid changes' Temperature and sea ice indicators marked in red — as in alert http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21347288/ WASHINGTON - While some indicators have stabilized, the Arctic is seeing significant changes from warming temperatures and shrinking sea ice, the Bush administration said Wednesday in an annual report card on the region. Sea ice fell well below the previous record, caribou are declining in many areas and permafrost is melting, according to the State of the Arctic report issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "The bottom line is we are seeing some rapid changes in the Arctic," said Richard Spinrad, assistant administrator for oceanic and atmospheric research at NOAA. Story continues below ↓ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- advertisement -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And unlike Las Vegas, "what happens in the Arctic actually does not stay in the Arctic," he added, playing on a well-traveled slogan of the gambling mecca. Scientists have expected polar regions to feel the first impacts of global warming and the 2006 State of the Arctic report provided a benchmark for tracking changes. Red and yellow marks Wednesday's follow-up was the first update, marking the atmosphere and sea ice indicators in red. The other indicators — Greenland, ocean, biology and land — were marked in yellow, or caution. Winter and spring temperatures were all above average throughout the whole Arctic, said James Overland of NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle. "This is unusual and looks like the beginning of a signal from global warming," Overland said in a telephone briefing. If you go back 100 years, it would be warm in one part of the Arctic and cold in another, Overland said. "We're not getting that now." Sea ice cover this year is 23 percent smaller than the past record low set in 2005 and 39 percent less than average, said Jacqueline Richter-Menge of the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H. She noted that the amount of older ice in the Arctic is significantly reduced, which makes it much more sensitive to change. Vladimir Romanovsky of the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, said the warming is affecting the permafrost in Siberia, Alaska and other regions. "This similarity of very different regions shows the changes are not local, they are on at least a hemispherical scale," Romanovsky said. The report card did note that some permafrost areas appear to be stabilizing and that the deep waters off Alaska appear to be cooling. But it emphasized that "collectively, the observations indicate that the overall warming of the Arctic system continued in 2007." Some Caribou declines Mike Gill, of the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program in Whitehorse, Canada, said the largest declines in caribou are centered over Canada and parts of Alaska. The herds are sensitive to changes in their range and sometimes have problems migrating in changing conditions, meaning that calving occurs before they get to new feeding grounds, resulting in higher mortality. The tundra itself is "shrubifying," he said and the increased shrub cover over many regions affects habitat and local climate, since it tends to absorb more solar radiation. The global goose population has been on the increase, he added, resulting in overgrazing in some areas. The full report card is online at www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/.
Yep, the greenland ice is retreating much faster than any of the models predict also. But hey, Kansas had a warmer year in 1936! Move along, nothing to sea, I mean see, here!
Really cool graphics with this story here... http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/10/01/science/20071002_ARCTIC_GRAPHIC.html ...the changes in sea ice over the last few years are amazing.
Gee whiz, half the arctic has melted and guess what, the streets of NYC are still dry? Sea-levels haven't risen either. Wow, clearly I must be deluded and actually drowning under 10 feet of sea-water.
We are talking trends. Clearly climate is changing. FWIW, sea levels are definitely rising also. More ice is melting. Some people need to be underwater to care, clearly. To reiterate for the interested non-troll parties: the ice in the arctic melting primarily does not raise sea level, just like ice melting in your gin and tonic does not suddenly overflow the glass. Same effective water level. The ice melting from greenland, and the south pole, however, will contribute to sea level rise. That's like adding fluid to the gin and tonic.
except the ice in greenland and antartica really isn't melting all that much....so it's really like adding one tiny drop to your drinking glass every year while the ice cubes turn to water as well.
Well, when Wall Street's under 10 feet, then NewYorker will be committed to finding a solution to refreezing all that water.
Clearly, you've chosen to "act the fool" here, with all due respect. You are in the mood to fixate on one aspect of the results of global warming and ignore the interlocking consequences of what's happening. Warming the ocean 1 degree Celsius would raise the level of the world's oceans half a meter, all by itself. But that isn't all that would occur, or is occuring now. And it assumes a water temperature rise of that magnitude. Who knows, for sure, how far the ocean's temperature will rise? That isn't the point. http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/presse/faq-s/wie-stark-steigt-der-meeresspiegel.html Honestly, I don't think you are so dumb that you can't see all that is happening right now because of climate change. You might consider whether it is prudent to invest, long term, in beachfront property. D&D. Impeach Bush for Gross Incompetence.
He is actually enjoying the fact that his permafrost backyard in Canada is now available for normal ground cover.
You can't predict next weeks weather with a supercomputer model, throw in CO2 levels, solar flares, variation in the magnetic field (it's weakening, it may flip), increasing cloud albedo as warmer air carries more water vapor, ocean temperatures (don't glaciers make cold water?) effecting the Gulf Stream and other planet scale currents, more or less active geologic events (how about a super volcano in Yellowstone). I say party on, just quit having children. Isn't negative population growth combined with higher efficiencies the answer. A smaller population would be more nimble adaptors. Or are humans just using the school of fish theory, have a large enough population and a percentage of them are expendable. Probably B. Maybe I can interest The Bill and Melinda Gates Fund to get involved in worldwide contraception. Personally, I'd do it with mysterious contrails but I could get behind an ad campaign too.
and please tell me where that one degree increase will come from. you still haven't shown us that the melting of the arctic will cause this. maybe it will only cause an increase of 0.01 degree celcius.
Except wall street isn't in canada. Are you kidding me, with global warming, i'm going to be sitting on prime real estate. Buy low, sell high. no pun intended
I think the point some are making is that it isn't that one drop you have to worry about, it is the cumulative effect of one drop over and over and over again. If you plug up your sink and set the water to drip once every minute...in a couple of days, you're gonna have a real mess. That seems to be the point. Personally, I just don't know. As I stated before, I think that changing behavior to reduce CO2 is a good idea, because it would be a real b**** to be wrong on this one.
i don't think we'll see ocean levels rise enough to cause problems in a short period of time - even aggressive estimates aren't that terrifying. what we need to do is monitor the situation and see how everything is being impacted. but either way, debating this is somewhat moot. the fact is, nothing will be done until the balance tips. right now, you're asking to trade jobs for something that may or may not be a threat. you aren't going to unite the world to act in that sense. when ocean levels start rising more than a few millimeters a year, and it can be linked to melting ice and expanding oceans, then you might start seeing some action. But probably we're 30 years away. The science of global warming is still in it's infancy. And we can afford to wait 10 years and watch trends and make sure we know what we're doing. My point is this. No one knows how much we need to cut CO2. If you want to be serious about cutting CO2, then let's talk about ways that are fair and equitable. Like Nuclear power, fuel economy standards, and incentives to cut CO2 output. Let's give tax breaks to those people and companies who use mass transit or telecommute. Let's tax imports from countries that don't work to cut CO2. But if you are going to make a difference, than you better think we have to cut C02 to what they were when the rise began, that's 1940's levels - not 1995. And you have to do it without killing economic growth and jobs. Good luck.
Global warming will be great for jobs growth, first we will have massive engineering projects to hold back the seas, then we will have massive construction projects as whole populations move inland. We can be smarter with a second chance, building more efficiently in higher densities and protecting the lowlands. Farm production should increase as farmers of the northern plains around the world (Canada and Russia) grow crops year round. The increases rainfall amounts (warmer air carries more moisture) should feed the new costal reefs of the submerged cities to make fishing abundant. Loaves and fishes for everyone in the new high rise cities of tomorrow. Besides, everyone loves Venice. So what's the big deal?
