[R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Twenty Years Later

[Bill Totten]

Tipping Points Near On Global Warming

by James Hansen

The Huffington Post (June 23 2008)

www.countercurrents.org (June 25 2008)


I testified to Congress about global warming, twenty years after my June
23 1988 testimony, which alerted the public that global warming was
underway. There are striking similarities between then and now, but one
big difference.

Again a wide gap has developed between what is understood about global
warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by
policymakers and the public. Now, as then, frank assessment of
scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body
politic. Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a
certainty exceeding 99 percent.

The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for
actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb. The next
president and Congress must define a course next year in which the
United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for
the present dangerous situation.

Otherwise it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric carbon
dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced in burning fossil fuels, to a level
that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that lead
to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity's
control.

Changes needed to preserve creation, the planet on which civilization
developed, are clear. But the changes have been blocked by special
interests, focused on short-term profits, who hold sway in Washington
and other capitals.

I argue that a path yielding energy independence and a healthier
environment is, barely, still possible. It requires a transformative
change of direction in Washington in the next year.

On June 23 1988 I testified to a hearing, organized by Senator Tim Wirth
of Colorado, that the Earth had entered a long-term warming trend and
that human-made greenhouse gases almost surely were responsible. I noted
that global warming enhanced both extremes of the water cycle, meaning
stronger droughts and forest fires, on the one hand, but also heavier
rains and floods.

My testimony two decades ago was greeted with skepticism. But while
skepticism is the lifeblood of science, it can confuse the public. As
scientists examine a topic from all perspectives, it may appear that
nothing is known with confidence. But from such broad open-minded study
of all data, valid conclusions can be drawn.

My conclusions in 1988 were built on a wide range of inputs from basic
physics, planetary studies, observations of on-going changes, and
climate models. The evidence was strong enough that I could say it was
time to "stop waffling". I was sure that time would bring the scientific
community to a similar consensus, as it has.

While international recognition of global warming was swift, actions
have faltered. The US refused to place limits on its emissions, and
developing countries such as China and India rapidly increased their
emissions.

What is at stake? Warming so far, about two degrees Fahrenheit over land
areas, seems almost innocuous, being less than day-to-day weather
fluctuations. But more warming is already "in the pipeline", delayed
only by the great inertia of the world ocean. And climate is nearing
dangerous tipping points. Elements of a "perfect storm", a global
cataclysm, are assembled.

Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid
changes. Arctic sea ice is a current example. Global warming initiated
sea ice melt, exposing darker ocean that absorbs more sunlight, melting
more ice. As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases, the
Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer.

More ominous tipping points loom. West Antarctic and Greenland ice
sheets are vulnerable to even small additional warming. These
two-mile-thick behemoths respond slowly at first, but if disintegration
gets well under way, it will become unstoppable. Debate among scientists
is only about how much sea level would rise by a given date. In my
opinion, if emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level
rise of at least two meters is likely within a century. Hundreds of
millions of people would become refugees, and no stable shoreline would
be reestablished in any time frame that humanity can conceive.

Animal and plant species are already being stressed by climate change.
Species can migrate in response to movement of their climatic zone, but
some species in polar and alpine regions will be pushed off the planet.
As climate zones move farther and faster, climate change will become the
primary cause of species extinction. The tipping point for life on the
planet will occur when so many interdependent species are lost that
ecosystems collapse.

The shocking conclusion, documented in a paper I have written with
several of the world's leading climate experts, is that the safe level
of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per
million), and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm
and rising about two ppm per year. Shocking corollary: the oft-stated
goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees
Fahrenheit) is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation.

These conclusions are based on paleoclimate data showing how the Earth
responded to past levels of greenhouse gases and on observations showing
how the world is responding to today's carbon dioxide amount. The
consequences of continued increase of greenhouse gases extend far beyond
extermination of species and future sea level rise.

Arid subtropical climate zones are expanding poleward. Already an
average expansion of about 250 miles has occurred, affecting the
southern United States, the Mediterranean region, Australia and southern
Africa. Forest fires and drying-up of lakes will increase further unless
carbon dioxide growth is halted and reversed.

Mountain glaciers are the source of fresh water for hundreds of millions
of people. These glaciers are receding world-wide, in the Himalayas,
Andes and Rocky Mountains. They will disappear, leaving their rivers as
trickles in late summer and fall, unless the growth of carbon dioxide is
reversed.

Coral reefs, the rainforest of the ocean, are home to one-third of the
species in the sea. Coral reefs are under stress for several reasons,
including warming of the ocean, but especially because of ocean
acidification, a direct effect of added carbon dioxide. Ocean life
dependent on carbonate shells and skeletons is threatened by dissolution
as the ocean becomes more acid.

Such phenomena, including the instability of Arctic sea ice and the
great ice sheets at today's carbon dioxide amount, show that we have
already gone too far. We must draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide to
preserve the planet we know. A level of no more than 350 ppm is still
feasible, with the help of reforestation and improved agricultural
practices, but just barely - time is running out.

The steps needed to halt carbon dioxide growth follow from the size of
fossil carbon reservoirs. Coal towers over oil and gas. Phase out of
coal use except where the carbon is captured and stored below ground is
the primary requirement for solving global warming.

Oil is used in vehicles, where it is impractical to capture the carbon.
But oil is running out. To preserve our planet we must also ensure that
the next mobile energy source is not obtained by squeezing oil from
coal, tar shale or other fossil fuels.

Fossil fuel reservoirs are finite, which is the main reason that prices
are rising. We must move beyond fossil fuels eventually. Solution of the
climate problem requires that we move to carbon-free energy promptly.

Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy
future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil
companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco
companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are
sophisticated, including disguised funding to shape school textbook
discussions.

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware
of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion,
these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
If their campaigns continue and "succeed" in confusing the public, I
anticipate testifying against relevant CEOs in future public trials.

Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation,
if we pass on a runaway climate to our children. Humanity would be
impoverished by ravages of continually shifting shorelines and
intensification of regional climate extremes. Loss of countless species
would leave a more desolate planet.

If politicians remain at loggerheads, citizens must lead. We must demand
a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. We must block fossil fuel
interests who aim to squeeze every last drop of oil from public lands,
off-shore, and wilderness areas. Those last drops are no solution. They
provide continued exorbitant profits for a short-sighted self-serving
industry, but no alleviation of our addiction or long-term energy solution.

Moving from fossil fuels to clean energy is challenging, yet
transformative in ways that will be welcomed. Cheap, subsidized fossil
fuels engendered bad habits. We import food from halfway around the
world, for example, even with healthier products available from nearby
fields. Local produce would be competitive if not for fossil fuel
subsidies and the fact that climate change damages and costs, due to
fossil fuels, are also borne by the public.

A price on emissions that cause harm is essential. Yes, a carbon tax.
Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is needed to wean us off fossil
fuel addiction. Tax and dividend allows the marketplace, not
politicians, to make investment decisions.

Carbon tax on coal, oil and gas is simple, applied at the first point of
sale or port of entry. The entire tax must be returned to the public, an
equal amount to each adult, a half-share for children. This dividend can
be deposited monthly in an individual's bank account.

Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is non-regressive. On the contrary,
you can bet that low and middle income people will find ways to limit
their carbon tax and come out ahead. Profligate energy users will have
to pay for their excesses.

Demand for low-carbon high-efficiency products will spur innovation,
making our products more competitive on international markets. Carbon
emissions will plummet as energy efficiency and renewable energies grow
rapidly. Black soot, mercury and other fossil fuel emissions will
decline. A brighter, cleaner future, with energy independence, is possible.

Washington likes to spend our tax money line-by-line. Swarms of
high-priced lobbyists in alligator shoes help Congress decide where to
spend, and in turn the lobbyists' clients provide "campaign" money.

The public must send a message to Washington. Preserve our planet,
creation, for our children and grandchildren, but do not use that as an
excuse for more tax-and-spend. Let this be our motto: "One hundred
percent dividend or fight! No more alligator shoes!"

The next president must make a national low-loss electric grid an
imperative. It will allow dispersed renewable energies to supplant
fossil fuels for power generation. Technology exists for direct-current
high-voltage buried transmission lines. Trunk lines can be completed in
less than a decade and expanded analogous to interstate highways.

Government must also change utility regulations so that profits do not
depend on selling ever more energy, but instead increase with
efficiency. Building code and vehicle efficiency requirements must be
improved and put on a path toward carbon neutrality.

The fossil-industry maintains its stranglehold on Washington via
demagoguery, using China and other developing nations as scapegoats to
rationalize inaction. In fact, we produced most of the excess carbon in
the air today, and it is to our advantage as a nation to move smartly in
developing ways to reduce emissions. As with the ozone problem,
developing countries can be allowed limited extra time to reduce
emissions. They will cooperate: they have much to lose from climate
change and much to gain from clean air and reduced dependence on fossil
fuels.

We must establish fair agreements with other countries. However, our own
tax and dividend should start immediately. We have much to gain from it
as a nation, and other countries will copy our success. If necessary,
import duties on products from uncooperative countries can level the
playing field, with the import tax added to the dividend pool.

Democracy works, but sometimes churns slowly. Time is short. The 2008
election is critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to pasture
the most brontosaurian congressmen, if Washington adapts to address
climate change, our children and grandchildren can still hold great
expectations.

_____

Dr James Hansen directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in
New York City and is Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences at Columbia
University's Earth Institute. Since the mid-1970s, Dr Hansen has focused
on studies and computer simulations of the Earth's climate, for the
purpose of understanding the human impact on global climate. He is best
known for his testimony on climate change to Congress in the 1980s that
helped raise broad awareness of the global warming issue. In recent
years Dr Hansen has drawn attention to the danger of passing climate
tipping points, producing irreversible climate impacts that would yield
a different planet from the one on which civilization developed. Dr
Hansen disputes the contention, of fossil fuel interests and governments
that support them, that it is an almost god-given fact that all fossil
fuels must be burned with their combustion products discharged into the
atmosphere. Instead Dr Hansen has outlined steps that are needed to
stabilize climate, with a cleaner atmosphere and ocean, and he
emphasizes the need for the public to influence government and industry
policies.

Copyright (c) 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/twenty-years-later-tippin_b_108766.html

http://www.countercurrents.org/hansen250608.htm

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____


Exclusive: No ice at the North Pole

Polar scientists reveal dramatic new evidence of climate change

by Steve Connor, Science Editor

Independent.co.uk (June 27 2008)


It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on
course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.

The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the
Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most
dramatic - and worrying - examples of the impact of global warming on
the planet. Scientists say the ice at ninety degrees north may well have
melted away by the summer.

"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on
the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to
be ice at the North Pole, not open water", said Mark Serreze of the US
National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.

If it happens, it raises the prospect of the Arctic nations being able
to exploit the valuable oil and mineral deposits below these a bed which
have until now been impossible to extract because of the thick sea ice
above.

Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally ice-free
North Pole this summer are greater than 50:50 because the normally thick
ice formed over many years at the Pole has been blown away and replaced
by huge swathes of thinner ice formed over a single year.

This one-year ice is highly vulnerable to melting during the summer
months and satellite data coming in over recent weeks shows that the
rate of melting is faster than last year, when there was an all-time
record loss of summer sea ice at the Arctic.

"The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the North
Pole is covered with extensive first-year ice - ice that formed last
autumn and winter. I'd say it's even-odds whether the North Pole melts
out", said Dr Serreze.

Each summer the sea ice melts before reforming again during the long
Arctic winter but the loss of sea ice last year was so extensive that
much of the Arctic Ocean became open water, with the water-ice boundary
coming just 700 miles away from the North Pole.

The diminishing polar ice

Courtesy of NOAA / NESDIS Center for Satellite Applications and Research

This meant that about 70 per cent of the sea ice present this spring was
single-year ice formed over last winter. Scientists predict that at
least 70 per cent of this single-year ice - and perhaps all of it - will
melt completely this summer, Dr Serreze said.

"Indeed, for the Arctic as a whole, the melt season started with even
more thin ice than in 2007, hence concerns that we may even beat last
year's sea-ice minimum. We'll see what happens, a great deal depends on
the weather patterns in July and August", he said.

Ron Lindsay, a polar scientist at the University of Washington in
Seattle, agreed that much now depends on what happens to the Arctic
weather in terms of wind patterns and hours of sunshine. "There's a good
chance that it will all melt away at the North Pole, it's certainly
feasible, but it's not guaranteed", Dr Lindsay said.

The polar regions are experiencing the most dramatic increase in average
temperatures due to global warming and scientists fear that as more sea
ice is lost, the darker, open ocean will absorb more heat and raise
local temperatures even further. Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge
University, who was one of the first civilian scientists to sail
underneath the Arctic sea ice in a Royal Navy submarine, said that the
conditions are ripe for an unprecedented melting of the ice at the North
Pole.

"Last year we saw huge areas of the ocean open up, which has never been
experienced before. People are expecting this to continue this year and
it is likely to extend over the North Pole. It is quite likely that the
North Pole will be exposed this summer - it's not happened before",
Professor Wadhams said.

There are other indications that the Arctic sea ice is showing signs of
breaking up. Scientists at the Nasa Goddard Space Flight Centre said
that the North Water 'polynya' - an expanse of open water surrounded on
all sides by ice - that normally forms near Alaska and Banks Island off
the Canadian coast, is much larger than normal. Polynyas absorb heat
from the sun and eat away at the edge of the sea ice.

Inuit natives living near Baffin Bay between Canada and Greenland are
also reporting that the sea ice there is starting to break up much
earlier than normal and that they have seen wide cracks appearing in the
ice where it normally remains stable. Satellite measurements collected
over nearly thirty years show a significant decline in the extent of the
Arctic sea ice, which has become more rapid in recent years.

Copyright (c) independent.co.uk

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html


TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this
essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/