Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Andrew Weaver

GET UPDATES FROM Andrew Weaver
 

The Latest Proof of Global Warming? Adios Summer Sea Ice

Posted: 09/09/2012 1:31 am

This past week is one to remember. On the positive side, Summer Mortimer and Benoit Huot continued their impressive medal haul at the 2012 London Paralympics. But more negatively, the federal Tories were up to more of their tricks putting fossil fuel interests ahead of pretty much everything else.

During this past week Arctic sea ice retreated to all-time lows, shattering the previous record set in 2007 by an area roughly the size of (ironically) Alberta. In a bizarre response, cruise ships are now bringing tourists through the inside passage to check things out, and our federal Minister of Natural Resources is in Vancouver trying to convince British Columbians that the proposed Kinder Morgan and Enbridge pipeline projects are a good thing.

Summer sea ice is nearly half of what it used to be just a couple of decades ago. And it is almost certainly committed to melting away in its entirety during the summer as a consequence of existing levels of greenhouse gases. But it gets worse.

On September 9, Andrew MacDougall, Chris Avis and I published a paper in the international journal Nature Geoscience. In it we quantify the magnitude of the permafrost carbon feedback to global warming that had been hitherto unaccounted for in previous assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The news is not good.

Instrumental records have clearly revealed that the world is about 0.8°C warmer than it was during pre-industrial times. Numerous studies have also indicated that as a consequence of existing levels of greenhouse gases, we have a commitment to an additional future global warming of between 0.6 and 0.7°C. Our analysis points out that the permafrost carbon feedback adds to this another 0.4 to 0.8°C warming. Taken together, the planet is committed to between 1.8 and 2.3°C of future global warming -- even if emissions reductions programs start to get implemented.

Canadians are concerned. Opinion poll after opinion poll reveals a high level of willingness within Canada to introduce policies to combat global warming. And the government repeatedly assures us that they get this.

For example, in June 2007 Prime Minister Steven Harper told world leaders that climate change was "perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today," and that "we owe it to future generations to do whatever we can to address this world problem." This oft-repeated mantra is exactly what Canadians want to hear from their elected governments. The federal government apparently understands the seriousness of the issue and so wants to do something about it. But when you scratch below the surface, it doesn't take long to find out how vacant and cynical these statements are.

Coming back to this past week, the much-anticipated new and improved federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired electricity plants leaked out. To no one's surprise, they are significantly weakened from what we had been told to expect. This one is particularly personal. Over the last year, the Tories frequently touted our study published in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change in February as evidence that the global warming potential of the Alberta tar sands resource is small relative to coal. What they failed to explain was that our overarching conclusion was that as a society, we live or die by our consumption of coal.

So here we now have a government willingly and knowingly committing future generations to ecological collapse and untold climate-related catastrophes. It's fully "knowing" since they have read, and selectively quoted from, our study on the warming potential of coal. It's "willing" because despite this, they are introducing policies that will ensure we have coal-fired electricity plants spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for decades to come. Will future generations hold these ideologues in Ottawa accountable for their actions? I certainly hope so.

And as the Arctic sea ice breaks new records, the federal government responds with its fourth headline-grabbing, yet issue-distracting, search for the missing Franklin ship in five years. Quietly, it sets in place countrywide medieval-style book-burnings as it shuts down and destroys the collections contained in scientific libraries at its federal laboratories across the nation. At the same time, we find out the feds are planning to build a multi-million dollar "world class" Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) in Cambridge Bay. But don't kid yourself; this has nothing to do with science.

In science you first ask a question that you want to address and then you put together the tools, instruments and programs to try and answer it. This is precisely what was done by Environment Canada in 1993 under the Mulroney government's progressive Green Plan. The Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL) in Eureka, formally known as the Arctic Stratospheric Ozone Observatory, was built to monitor, study and report on the status of the Earth's protective Arctic ozone layer. It was situated on Ellesmere Island, about 1,100 km from the North Pole for scientific reasons. Yet just when the ozone hole reaches record levels, the Tories shut down funding for PEARL. Gone is Canada's ability to monitor the Arctic ozone hole. And gone is the investment of tens of millions of dollars of Canadian taxpayer funding.

Instead, the Tories offer up a facility in search of science to justify its existence. There are no scientific questions driving this agenda. The establishment of CHARS is all about enforcing sovereignty in the North to pave the way for enhanced resource extraction, particularly in the oil and gas sector. Sure, there will be opportunists in the scientific community who will take advantage of the facility if it's built, just like barnacles will find and latch onto a new ship brought into a harbour. But the real question is: when will the federal government come clean with its agenda?

So as we move into the autumn of the second year under the Harper regime, the war on science and the environment continues. Is there no one left in the Conservative Party willing to stand up to this short-sighted and one-dimensional view of the world? Apparently not.

 
 
 
FOLLOW CANADA POLITICS
This past week is one to remember. On the positive side, Summer Mortimer and ...
This past week is one to remember. On the positive side, Summer Mortimer and ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 28
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Andrew Weaver
01:21 AM on 09/13/2012
Hello Paul, I would rather get my science from sites like:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

I have never heard of the fellow you quote. But I have read the published work of the scientists at NSIDC. You can always dredge the internet to find someone who says what you want to hear. That is not how science works. That's called junk science.

In science, you seek an explanation of all know observations of a phenomenon; in junk science, you have the answer, and now you seek information that supports that answer and selectively ignore everything else.

In the case of the German screed... what hitherto unknown "well known natural cycle" is he talking about. Also, both these statements are wrong:

1) he global temperature did not rise for 14 years, and instead is now showing a slight downward trend (Is the quiet sun having an impact?);

2) In contradiction to the IPCC forecasts, sea level rise shows no acceleration,

Go to http://www.agu.org/journals/abs/2006/2005GL024826.shtml for the latter. I covered the other one earlier.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:20 PM on 09/13/2012
European Institute For Climate and Energy - That's " dredging" the Internet? C'mon Andrew , you're better than that and surely you don't need to advance the conversation that way.
I read your link regarding sea level rise. 12 inches +/- over 110 years? What about all those 20 metre predictions? I guess 280mm does sound more menacing.
I only wish to offer a contrary view that is consistent with scientific inquiry.

http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/25/klaus-eckhart-puls-hello-globalcooling-scientists-bordering-on-fraud/

http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/26/klaus-ekhart-puls-sea-level-rise-is-slowing-down-theres-going-to-be-no-acceleration/

I see no rational in demeaning or disqualifying them from the debate.
01:21 PM on 09/10/2012
Melting ice allows for navigation in the arctic. Unregulated shipping will exacerbate shoreline erosion. Melting permafrost will release unmeasurable quantities of greenhouse gasses, possibly enough to block sunlight for extended periods. This will likely bring on another ice age in the northern hemisphere, which should balance the system out nicely. It will all sort itself out in twenty or thirty thousand years. You'll see.
09:01 AM on 09/10/2012
I am truly surprised by the comments for this post. I am also surprised that some people would think that they owe the future nothing. Let's flip that around then. What does the future owe you? The next generation already faces climate uncertainty and job uncertainty. At some point they will be asked to support older generations. You will need them as caregivers, you will need them to maintain pensions, you will need them to grow your food. They already know they're getting the shaft--do you think they should return the favor?
08:30 PM on 09/09/2012
The environment becomes irrelevant in forty years or less, I won't need to breathe then. Burn that coal!
08:44 AM on 09/10/2012
I'm not selfish enough to have children.
06:28 PM on 09/09/2012
Now Prof - you have to know that the Bible is the only true thing even if the contrdictions are glaring. Science is in the way of what Harper believes and he believes the voice in his head is the voice of god and must be right even if scientists are able to prove anything. First Harper and his voice of god and then get lost scientists. 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4 if the voice in Harper's head says it equals five or three.
04:50 PM on 09/09/2012
You see dear Andrew, what has the future done for me lately?

If you can fix it without costing me a cent then I'm all for it. But if I have to pay for it, forget it. I have no offspring, am unlikely to get any, and won't be around when the water hits the fan - so too bad for the future.

You could always boat building factory.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Andrew Weaver
11:32 PM on 09/09/2012
Well Perspicackle, I fully accept your opinion. Obviously there are many people who don't believe we owe anything to future generations. There are many others who don't believe we have any responsibility to the preservation of biological diversity and ecological systems.

Anarchists might live by this mantra. But in civil society, I suspect you will find that the overwhelming majority of people believe we owe future generations the right to live in the same type of world that we do. Most who have children would definitely ascribe to this. And for the record, I have two children.
12:25 AM on 09/10/2012
Hey bubble boy, If you think your are immune from the effects of climate change you need to give your head a shake. Climate affects every aspect of your life. Health, agriculture, disease, natural resources, etc. etc.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:59 PM on 09/09/2012
Well, let's try this then and look at the big picture.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Andrew Weaver
11:39 PM on 09/09/2012
Paul, the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land. Antarctica is a frozen block of land surrounded by ocean. Things operate differently in these cases. Also, the Antarctic peninsula is warming extremely fast.

For example, in the Southern Ocean, the tightening of the polar vortex (as a consequence of climate change) is such that you would expect enhanced Ekman flux of sea ice northwards. As such, you would actually expect increase ice extent initially away from the Antarctic coast.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:31 AM on 09/10/2012
Sorry sir; we've heard all this before.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/12/the-arctic-ocean-could-be-nearly-ice-free-at-the-end-of-summer-by-2012/
Check out the sea-ice page at this site for a more complete overview

33 years of satellite data within the context of earth history is cherry picking at it's finest especially when you consider that last winter, ice in the Bering Sea experienced it's thickest ice cover in recorded history.

http://quixoteslaststand.com/?s=Bering+sea+ice

Yes we had a warmer than average summer, but to say that sea ice will be gone could backfire badly if we have another winter like last year. Thing is Andrew, we're paying attention.
Perhaps you could look at other natural factors such as winds, ocean currents and solar activity.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:02 AM on 09/10/2012
Sir- the science is never settled;
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/09/05/antarctica-warming-cooling-or-both/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:34 AM on 09/09/2012
Meanwhile the same doom and gloom in Antarctica;

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

Oh wait...
This comment has been removed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:29 PM on 09/09/2012
Please write an essay comparing the effects of Arctic and Antarctic ice coverage on the industrialized nations, especially the US, Europe, Russia and China.
Yes you don't seem to have passed high school science.