Another moment of terrible significance

If the breaking of the ice bridge on the Wilkins Ice Shelf at the start of April was, as a Times leader so rightly reported, a moment of terrible significance, (covered here and here) then what is now happening has to be all the more so.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf has since destabilised and is starting to calve - in other words its seaward edge is starting to break up on a massive scale.

This was reported a few days ago the European Space Agency - though there seems to be no report to be found on its rather rudimentary website - and covered 3 days ago by the news agency UPI. However the mainstream media has in the main been slow to pick up this key development.

From what has trickled in subsequently we learn that 'about 700 sq km of ice - bigger than Singapore or Bahrain and almost the size of New York - has broken off the Wilkins this month and shattered into a mass of icebergs.'

Scientists estimate that 'over the next several weeks the Wilkins shelf will lose some 1,300 square miles (3,370 square kilometers), an area larger than the state of Rhode Island, or two-thirds the size of Luxembourg.'

While more forebodingly: 'even more ice could break off "if the connection to Latady Island is lost" though it is as yet unclear that will happen.'

The best impression can be had by viewing the image slideshow on the ESA website on which Latady Island is clearly visible, while making allowance for the fact that the accompanying text is hopelessly retrospective.

While here is a sample of the press coverage.

The Independent reports

'Humbert told Reuters about 700 sq km of ice - bigger than Singapore or Bahrain and almost the size of New York - has broken off the Wilkins this month and shattered into a mass of icebergs.
'She said 370 sq kms of ice had cracked up in recent days.'


The Guardian story went out 9 hours ago, which tells us

'"The retreat of Wilkins Ice Shelf is the latest and the largest of its kind"'.

'The Wilkins shelf, which is the size of Jamaica, lost 14 percent of its mass last year'

'Average temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula have risen by 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5 Celsius) over the past 50 years — [sic] higher than the average global rise, according to studies.
'Over the next several weeks, scientists estimate the Wilkins shelf will lose some 1,300 square miles (3,370 square kilometers) — [sic] a piece larger than the state of Rhode Island, or two-thirds the size of Luxembourg.

'"We are not sure if a new stable ice front will now form between Latady Island, Petrie Ice Rises and Dorsey Island," said Angelika Humbert of Germany's Muenster University Institute of Geophysics.
'But even more ice could break off "if the connection to Latady Island is lost," she said, "though we have no indication that this will happen in the near future."'


The Telegraph adds

'David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey said: "The retreat of Wilkins Ice Shelf is the latest and largest of its kind.
'"Eight separate ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula have shown signs of retreat over the last few decades.
'"There is little doubt that these changes are the result of atmospheric warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, which has been the most rapid in the Southern Hemisphere."'

We should be watching with absolute attention as this drama unfolds, with the key question being how the glacier behind disintegrating ice shelf will respond.

Yet also for the historic drama. Not often in humanity's history have we been presented with the chance to bid farewell to an Earth feature as old as the hills - literally - and forever.

Should ever it reappear it will not be in be in the foreseeable future. Nor prior to the next ice age. So make sure your kids get the chance to witness this for themselves.

Apocalyse shortly! - Lovelock

Last October the prognosticator carried Apocalypse shortly? We should know next by next summer.

It was prompted by the disquieting discovery in the dying days of the last Arctic summer of the unprecedented release of methane in large quantity from the Arctic sea floor, and attempted to distill the grave implications resulting.

James Lovelock's latest thoughts on the matter are simpler. They come from an interview carried in the Irish Times of 16 April under the title The genial prophet of climate doom.

Why? Because for Lovelock, it is not a question of if. It is now a certainty.

Along with most climate scientists and specialists in the region, in the case of the Arctic ice the debate is no longer of whether it will endure, merely one of when. From there the process is inevitable:

'Within 30 years, he believes, the Arctic’s floating summer sea ice will all be melted. The polar caps will no longer reflect sunlight back into space and, instead, the ocean will absorb sunlight, heating up. The permafrosts in northern Canada and Siberia will thaw out, releasing carbon dioxide (CO2). At the same time, the tropical forests, which play a critical role in taking CO2 from the atmosphere, will die out. Global temperatures will rise by between five and six degrees in a short period of time, rendering most of the world uninhabitable for the vast majority of mankind.'

'“It is out of our hands. When the floating ice finally melts, it will be the equivalent of nearly all of the CO2 we have put in the atmosphere to date, so the earth begins to join in the act of global heating, doing it in a big way,” he says. “The earth is already moving to its hot stage. The hotter it gets, the faster it goes – and we can’t stop it.”'

'The problem, as Lovelock sees it, is that we have trashed the planet, destroying ecosystems and pumping harmful levels of CO2 into the air. The damage is already done.

'The temperature rises will be permanent, he predicts, and Gaia will adjust. Life will survive, but there is no guarantee that human beings will.'



'He pours scorn on the idea that climate change can be reversible.'

Quite rightly he points out that geoengineering - the concept that we can somehow fix climate change using technology, in essence manage both the planet and its climate - is an absolute conceit and utter folly.

'He pours scorn on the idea that climate change can be reversible.'

We only have to look objectively at our present predicament to see that.

'“I think humans just aren’t clever enough to handle the planet at the moment. We can’t even handle our financial affairs. The worst possible thing that could happen is the green dream of taking charge and saving the planet. I’d sooner a goat as a gardener than humans in charge of the earth,” he says.'

Odd, though, that he attributes that aspiration to the green lobby, as it seems misplaced. Perhaps a small portion of it. But most green solutions are based on living more ecologically and closer to the Earth.

The proponents of geoengineering are those still wedded to technology as the be all and end all (possibly quite literally) of life. In other words those who somehow remain able to believe that the industrial and economic system that has put us on the very brink is miraculously also to be our saviour.

Part of this is a naive and misplaced faith in the powers of science and technology to develop such a solution and on a scale totally unprecedented by orders of magnitude, and to do so perfectly, first time, without any prior testing. That is quite a belief.

But the main reason it is favoured is because it is the ideal recipe for the maintenance of that system as it is - massive investment in new technologies offering a bonanza for all concerned: stockbrokers and financiers; scientists, engineers, designers; manufacturers, materials suppliers; real estate; engineering and construction companies. So the perfect economic stimulus on a planetary scale, just when it is considered so desperately needed.

That is what swings the enthusiasm and support. The system marches on triumphant and unaltered. All predicated on the madness that economic well-being is paramount. Or at least on a par with having a future. Strange kind of thinking, really.

Here is where it has got us so far:

'QUITE THE MOST dire of his predictions is that the human race will be reduced in numbers to around one billion people by the end of this century. The biggest problem, he believes, is that there are just too many of us. Simply by existing, we and our lifestock [sic] account for a quarter of all man-made CO2 emissions.'

Yet like all good stories, this one still manages to surprise by reconciling things against all odds in a happy ending:

“I lived through the second World War and I thought it was exciting even though I was a pacifist. Life is going to be the opposite of boring. Young people will not regard the catastrophe in the same way as our generation will do.”

So there you go.

In closing, for James Lovelock's sake, we should note one error. The Gaia theory is not 'that the world is itself a living organism.' It is that the biosphere behaves in a manner analogous to a living organism in acting to sustain optimal conditions for the continuation of life on the planet. He is not well enamoured with that New Age interpretation.

Lovelock's scientific Gaia theory is by now thoroughly proven. The process it describes is what we have thoroughly derailed by our energy profligate ways of living.

What price a future?


For those wanting more, here is a review of both his latest book and his biography by John and Mary Gribbin which were published simultaneously in February.

The Age of Stupid premier Sunday 15 March

Very briefly this is something positive and vitally important. The Age of Stupid takes up the baton from An Inconvenient Truth. It promises to make the vital change perceptions to climate change on a grand scale. The film made a big impression when previewed in the House of Commons tea rooms packed to the limit. Here's what some famous people have already said.

Equally important is that Polly Higgins will be speaking at the premier to give The Trees Have Rights Too campaign its first large scale public airing. The campaign calls for a United Nations Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights to fundamentally repair our broken relationship with the planet, and is the best chance we have of salvaging something from our self-imposed predicament. More on this later.

Little time to say more, so below are some other folks' take on it.


From Wise Women

FIRST SOLAR POWERED PREMIERE LIGHTS UP LEICESTER SQUAREEveryone invited to world’s biggest film premiere!At 6pm on Sunday 15th March, London’s Leicester Square will be hosting the world’s first premiere in a solar cinema tent for the highly anticipated climate change film, The Age of Stupid.The Age of Stupid stars Pete Postlethwaite as an old man living alone in what is a devastated world of 2055, looking at “archive footage” from 2008, asking “why didn’t we stop climate change when we had the chance?”. Directed by Franny Armstrong (McLibel) and produced by Oscar-winning John Battsek (One Day in September), the £450,000 budget for the film was raised entirely by “crowd-funding” whereby 228 people invested between £500 and £35,000.Held in a tent in the gardens of the square, the premiere also gives the British public an opportunity to be included in the events on the night. Green carpet arrivals and a post-film Q&A will be beamed around the UK via live satellite link-up to over 70 cinemas including the Eden Project in Cornwall, creating a truly exceptional experience and a “People’s Premiere”.Tickets now on sale. You can buy tickets at your local participating cinema for the record-breaking People's Premiere on March 15th (16,000 seats simultaneously at 64 cinemas across the UK!)


From Embercombe

The Age of Stupid has arrived!See the trailer at: http://www.gmx.com/fm07/cgi/derefer?TYPE=2&DEST=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ageofstupid.net%2Fvideo%2FtrailerHere’s the press release: FIRST SOLAR POWERED PREMIERE LIGHTS UP LEICESTER SQUAREEveryone invited to world’s biggest film premiere!At 6pm on Sunday 15th March, London’s Leicester Square will be hosting the world’s first premiere in a solar cinema tent for the highly anticipated climate change film, The Age of Stupid.The Age of Stupid stars Pete Postlethwaite as an old man living alone in what is a devastated world of 2055, looking at “archive footage” from 2008, asking “why didn’t we stop climate change when we had the chance?”. Directed by Franny Armstrong (McLibel) and produced by Oscar-winning John Battsek (One Day in September), the £450,000 budget for the film was raised entirely by “crowd-funding” whereby 228 people invested between £500 and £35,000.The UK Film Council, which is keen to support new and groundbreaking methods of distribution, is supporting the film’s distributor Dogwoof with funding towards the live satellite transmission of the premiere and Q&A to cinemas across the UK. Oscar Nominee Pete Postlethwaite stars as the narrator of the film and will be joined on the “green” carpet by a glittering array of British talent all lending their support to the film and the climate action campaign, “Not Stupid”. Held in a tent in the gardens of the square, the premiere also gives the British public an opportunity to be included in the events on the night. Green carpet arrivals and a post-film Q&A will be beamed around the UK via live satellite link-up to over 70 cinemas including the Eden Project in Cornwall, creating a truly exceptional experience and a “People’s Premiere”. The public can buy tickets at their local participating cinema.With 16,000 expected attendees across the country, the Guinness Book of Records expect to confirm it’s the largest ever premiere.See the trailer at: http://www.gmx.com/fm07/cgi/derefer?TYPE=2&DEST=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ageofstupid.net%2Fvideo%2FtrailerTickets now on sale!1. For the record-breaking People's Premiere on March 15th (16,000 seats simultaneously at 64 cinemas across the UK!): http://www.gmx.com/fm07/cgi/derefer?TYPE=2&DEST=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ageofstupid.net%2Fpremiere2. For the national cinema release on March 20th (10 cinemas so far): http://www.gmx.com/fm07/cgi/derefer?TYPE=2&DEST=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ageofstupid.net%2Fweekone>>>



Aberdeen: THE BELMONT>>> Bath: THE LITTLE THEATRE>>> Birmingham: VUE>>> Blackburn: VUE>>> Bristol: VUE>>> Bury: VUE>>> Cambridge: VUE>>> Cardiff: THE CHAPTER CINEMA>>> Carlisle: VUE>>> Cheshire Oaks: VUE>>> Clones, Co. Monaghan: Clones Film Club>>> Croydon Purley Way: VUE>>> Edinburgh: VUE>>> Enniskillen, Co. Fermanagh: FERMANAGH HOUSE>>> Exeter: EXETER PICTUREHOUSE with talk by Mac Macartney of Embercombe>>> Glasgow: GLASGOW FILM THEATRE>>> Glasgow: ODEON Braehead>>> Guilford: ODEON>>> Harrow: VUE>>> Hartlepool: VUE Hartlepool>>> Hatfield: ODEON>>> Hull: VUE>>> Inverness: VUE>>> Kingston: ODEON>>> Leeds Kirkstall: VUE>>> Leeds Light: VUE>>> Leicester: VUE>>> Lincoln: ODEON>>> Liverpool: FACT>>> Livingston: VUE>>> London: ODEON Greenwich>>> London: ODEON Wimbledon with talk by Suzy Edwards of Embercombe>>> London: SOLAR POWERED CINEMA TENT Leicester Square>>> London: VUE Acton>>> London: VUE Finchley Rd>>> London: VUE Fulham (Youth)>>> London: VUE Islington>>> London: VUE Shepherds Bush>>> Maidenhead: ODEON>>> Manchester-Lowry: VUE>>> Naul, Co. Dublin: THE SEAMUS ENNIS CENTRE>>> New Ross: ST. MICHAEL'S THEATRE>>> Newcastle West, Co. Limerick: DESMOND ABILITY RESOURCE CENTRE>>> Newcastle-under-Lyme: VUE>>> Newcastle: TYNESIDE CINEMA>>> Oxford: PHOENIX PICTUREHOUSE>>> Plymouth: VUE>>> Portlaoise, Co. Laois: DUNAMISE ARTS CENTRE>>> Portsmouth: VUE>>> Preston: VUE>>> Reading: VUE>>> Romford: VUE>>> Scunthorpe: VUE>>> Southport: VUE>>> Staines: VUE>>> Swindon: EMPIRE>>> Tinahely, Co. Wicklow: THE COURTHOUSE ARTS CENTRE>>> Tunbridge Wells: ODEON>>> Watford: VUE>>> Wigan: EMPIRE>>> York: VUE


Enjoy and be galvanised

Perfectly on form - in denial again

I suspect that if there are historians still around at the end of all this, they will look back to that story in the Independent on 23 September as an absolute watershed in human history. It marks a clear divide at the end of the long period just finished during which the population at large could regard the prospect of runaway climate change as just another hypothesis which, despite the odd disquieting signal (and later the slow but relentless stream of them), could be relegated to the realms of fantasy. Alongside so many others that emerged from odd quarters of the scientific community but turned out to be mumbo-jumbo at best, if not positively laughable with hindsight.

That option was never there for the scientist. But the lay person has a wonderful ability to disregard unpleasant uncertainties as if they were nothing but fictional, or even as if they had never been thought of at all. Somewhat akin to a gambler who, having placed bets on certain runners, is able to exclude all the others from his or her reality as if they did not exist, and maintain the focus of interest and attention exclusively on the progress of his or her chosen subjects.

Curiously, in practice it tends to work as long as they place safe bets on tried and trusted riders, and dark outsiders do not overturn the cosy predictability of normality too often. The occasional upset can be endured on the basis of the overall average. But it is at best no more than a coping strategy, and one that limits the practitioner to a restricted group of set responses - whilst completely preventing a more full and objective engagement. Or any at all in new developments that fall outside their self-defined safe boundaries.

Probably most people live their lives on a strategy more or less similar. But it is no more than a coping strategy, and one that is fundamentally flawed because should one of the possibilities that has been dismissed and is being ignored actually come to pass, not only are they completely unprepared for it, but it appears to come as a bolt out of nowhere and with the force of Thor's hammer. It wasn't really - its evolution and arrival were perfectly foreseeable to any who had been able to maintain objectivity, taken the trouble to look and observe. But to those who had blanked it out, that would be how events would appear. Nowhere is this more apparent than over climate change and the various other environmental threats pressing down on us from all sides.


Nor is it only the common person. When you look for it, this form of denial is manifest more or less universally. And most reprehensibly by those who hold power and would lead society.

On the one hand the world of business and economic interests seems unable to grasp the enormity of the threat that is upon us, and stumble on under the illusion that business as usual, or as close to it as can be approximated under the circumstances, will somehow get us through - and admirably. This stems from an extreme and irrational overvaluing of profit above, and more or less to the exclusion of, all else. Hence most of what are alleged to be imaginative business responses to climate change turn out to be little more than repackaging exercises designed to minimise real change to the fundamental model and the resulting bottom line, while putting a bright new and very saleable spin on what has always been offered. It ought by now be painfully apparent to all that economic activity has always been the main driver of environmental damage, so that very model is utterly bankrupt faced with something on the overwhelming scale of climate change, not least because it has been and remains the very cause.

Much the same goes for governments and the machinery that composes them. Politicians elected - laughably, as is apparent under the circumstances - for their vision, integrity and ability to lead, have proved over and over that they are afflicted by the very same symptoms as the person in the street, and seem incapable even to perceive the magnitude of the threat let alone respond to it, so prove completely inept at ordering a rational set of priorities, and intrinsically incapable of convincing, facilitating and inspiring society to restructure radically as is imperative in response.

Instead they downplay the priority and focus upon the tried and trusted, playing to - or more probably sharing - the anxiety of the mass over economic downturn. In part because they, like the folk in the street, have failed to manage their finances with prudence, left themselves exposed, so got caught hopping when the inevitable crunch happened along.

Far from being a greater disaster, recession is actually quite normal and not the huge threat it is made out to be. It is merely the other side of the economic cycle which follows growth as inevitably as low tide follows high, and can be charted just as visually. It should not, therefore, be such a big deal. Indeed it ought properly be an event anticipated and planned for in our lives, with as much certainly as we do for winter. If anything is currently remarkable, it is the length of the period of positive growth that has preceded the current downturn. So its end ought rightly to be cause for thanks and celebration for the boom we have enjoyed for so long and the wealth we have been able to accumulate as a result, rather than a churlish and mealy-mouthed angst that we don't have as much coming in today, and how can we possibly get buy/by? All that serves to reveal is the depths of our greed, together with our lack of prudence and economic management resultant from it.


Meanwhile those employed by the state for their expertise to guide governments along the process - the diplomats, civil servants, policy advisors and so on - seem almost equally lost in illusion. As a body they have failed to grasp that you cannot negotiate with Gaia (or with the environment, if you prefer). Nowhere is this more apparent than in the utterly narcissistic idea that the timing of the introduction of the replacement for Kyoto, which is absolutely critical for our survival, should be decided by diplomatic timetables fixed years ago for late next year to keep the diaries neat, and not by the real, physical urgency of what is happening on the ground, in the waters and in the atmosphere. Do they really think climate change is going to kick around outside the door waiting their decision because they and the politicians they serve are VIPs (Very Important Persons - there can be few titles more narcissistic) with hectic schedules to fulfil and too many calls on their time? And whatever defences they may throw up for this critical failure, is it not absolutely self-apparent that were it a war they were trying to avert, none of this timetable nonsense, this procedural protocol, would be allowed for one moment to impede attempts to broker peace. Yet no war yet fought has been as threatening to the future as climate change, and only an all-out nuclear Armageddon could be. It is but one more reflection of the critical failure of society to grasp even the bare essentials of the peril in which it lies, and of the denial that is rampant everywhere you look as a result.


Scientists never had this luxury. Once it became clear that methane was detectable in the Arctic waters in areas where it had never before been measurable, they could not simply disregard the prospect of runaway climate change as mere hypothesis. The methane was there, and methodology obliged them to ask from where was it coming, and why. Until those two questions have been answered, any hypothesis which postulates a plausible explanation has to be taken seriously. Unfortunately, in this case there are few if any, other than runaway climate change.

So scientists have been living with this possibility for a long time, watching intently for more evidence to understand better, and calling for caution and timely, proportionate action. May that the rest of society now come to its senses, and come and join them on the Arctic ice - in spirit at least.

Apocalypse shortly? We should know by next summer

Here is the news that we all hoped would never happen.

Guess we thought we would all get away with it. That it just wouldn't come to pass. Despite all the inevitability. That it would turn out to be no more than another apocalyptic scare story from those crackpot Earth scientists – the ones who were running around thirty years ago predicting arrival of the next ice age.

Or if it really is inevitable, not in our lifetimes. Or at least, for pity's sake, not until 2070 when we've had our best years and are about ready to depart this mortal coil.

Best of all, that it should be like all those other things you read about in the news that everyone gets so exercised about, but then just seem to dissolve and leave nothing. Nothing happens, then later people seem hardly to remember. The millenium bug, the asteroid that is going to hit, the killer bees. Perhaps avian flu. Things like that. Scary stories that spice life up and cause a big hoo-ha... but ultimately come to zilch.

Like positive feedback cutting in and spiralling climate change - more or less literally - into the stratosphere. Images of millions of tonnes of methane liberated from the sea floor, bubbling up to the surface in great plumes over vast swathes of ocean, making research vessels look like toy boats in some infernal hot tub with the jacuzzi turned up full... Ideas like that.

But of course that all remains incorrigibly hypothetical, because the tipping point has always been w a y over yonder.

If it is not totally mythical. Or so goes the thinking.



Well guess what...?


...No!


Yep.


Afraid so.


Or - if it isn't - it is something never before seen that just happens to bear the most uncanny likeness.

'"We had a hectic finishing of the sampling programme yesterday and this past night," said Dr Gustafsson. "An extensive area of intense methane release was found. At earlier sites we had found elevated levels of dissolved methane. Yesterday, for the first time, we documented a field where the release was so intense that the methane did not have time to dissolve into the seawater but was rising as methane bubbles to the sea surface. These 'methane chimneys' were documented on echo sounder and with seismic [instruments]."

At some locations, methane concentrations reached 100 times background levels. These anomalies have been seen in the East Siberian Sea and the Laptev Sea, covering several tens of thousands of square kilometres, amounting to millions of tons of methane, said Dr Gustafsson. "This may be of the same magnitude as presently estimated from the global ocean," he said. "Nobody knows how many more such areas exist on the extensive East Siberian continental shelves.

"The conventional thought has been that the permafrost 'lid' on the sub-sea sediments on the Siberian shelf should cap and hold the massive reservoirs of shallow methane deposits in place. The growing evidence for release of methane in this inaccessible region may suggest that the permafrost lid is starting to get perforated and thus leak methane... The permafrost now has small holes. We have found elevated levels of methane above the water surface and even more in the water just below. It is obvious that the source is the seabed."'

This is not science fiction. Nor is it the script from some topical TV drama.

It comes from an exclusive called, aptly enough, Exclusive: The Methane time bomb carried by the Independent on 23 September. The quote above is how it covered a rather breathless report by the leader of an international scientific expedition, made direct from the decks of the research vessel immediately it finished sailing the entire length of Russia's north coast.

Arguably this is the most important news story of all time - because it indicates, for the first time ever, a reasonable possibility of the arrival of conditions that will bring life as we know it shortly to an end, (including the two-legged ones - and history too, being an exclusively anthropocentric interest, also, for that matter). As such it deserves detailed examination, so here is a cheat sheet.




What we have here is more or less exactly what is predicted by the positive feedback model. So is that what is going on?

Well there seems to be a strong case in that direction. It would seem to be primary evidence that climate change has now got to such a magnitude that it is causing the melting of permafrost and methane hydrates on a large scale. First, the fit is near perfect. The Arctic as the hotspot for global warming is heating up tremendously – the latest figure is by an astonishing five degrees. The Arctic ice seems to be in terminal retreat with the consequence that yet more energy gets transferred to the system as it gives way to seawater – one of the most absorbant substances known. The tundra is certainly melting, and very quickly too. Methane has been detectable in the Arctic waters since 2003 or earlier whereas it was not present before, suggesting that the methane hydrates and permafrost have been under stress and starting to leak for some time. Yet we have not reacted.

Second, it is hard to postulate another explanation. There are no other sources of methane on this scale to look to, other than huge deposits of submerged, rotting material not presently known to exist. So it would seem likely that whatever is causing this is triggering release from the methane hydrates and the permafrost.



OK, so it looks like positive feedback, but are there credible alternatives to climate change as the cause?

Not really. One could postulate that that is being caused by a different mechanism unrelated to climate change, for instance:

The permafrost cap in these areas may have been fractured by seismic activity. But if that was the case, these plumes would have been observed since time immemorial.

A large but localised geothermal hotspot could have caused the melting. But again, that possibility has always been around, so why has this not been seen until now? You could argue that as a result of the temperature changes in the Arctic waters caused by climate change, the permafrost cap has now been weakened by thawing to a state where it is vulnerable to such hotspots, whereas before it was not. This does still not seem as likely though, as so far we have no evidence linking what is happening to hotspots. But it is coherent enough to deserve further scrutiny to see if it stands up.


There are no other obvious ones at present. Of these, only one seems to stand up to even mild scrutiny. And it still looks close to a no-hoper alongside the positive feedback model.



So is it positive feedback for sure?

Not yet. It can be considered positive feedback when it is known to be either triggering a runaway release of the stored methane; or it causes runaway effects elsewhere in the climate system. Neither of these have yet been proven. But it is clearly a strong signal that the first may already be in train; and that may well give rise to the second over a longer period.

The first could be observed fairly readily, so should be obvious by the end of next summer at latest. The second depends upon how catastrophic the effect. The more so the quicker it will become apparent.



So what next?

The Arctic Ocean is now be freezing over again with the onset of winter, which will impede research in the short term. It also gives rise to a number of possible scenarios overwinter. If the methane release continues unabated or at an increasing rate it may either be trapped beneath the ice in huge bubbles or reservoirs, or it may dissolve in the sea water and diffuse somewhat.

If the former, there will be a colossal release of trapped methane about next March when the sea ice begins to break up, which should prove interesting. Once liberated to the atmosphere it will add to forcing, possibly by a significant factor depending on how much is released. This could lead to a significant hike in temperatures, and possibly to positive feedback in that respect.

If the latter, the release will be more attenuated. But this will make little difference to the net amount released or to the climatic effects medium to long-term.

Alternatively the rate of methane release may slow up over winter. This could result from a reduction of biological activity if this is a factor in play, or other unforeseen changes as a result of falling temperature.



Could it stop altogether for the winter... or forever?

The problem here is to find a mechanism that would cause that to happen.

If, as seems likely, the release is being caused by a weakening of the permafrost cap caused by melting, the only mechanism likely to stop that is if the cap refreezes again, sealing itself in the process. But that seems most improbable under present conditions, which are giving rise to long-term and potentially irreversible melting, generally through the region.

Sea ice may reform in winter, but it does so at the surface, and in fairly thin plates. The only conceivable way for this process to affect permafrost lying on or below the sea bed would be if the entire body of water from surface to sea bed were to freeze. Whilst the depths involved are not explicitly stated in the report, we must assume sufficient depth for the research ship to pass – say five metres at absolute minimum. Given that sea temperatures have been rising, and freezing delayed by the increased area of open water and by the milder climate generally, it seems vanishingly unlikely this would happen, short of a catastrophically severe winter, or more convincingly, a succession of them. That, in turn, seems highly unlikely for the same reasons.



Methane – that's pretty nasty stuff – right?

The worst greenhouse gas arising naturally and in quantity. Here's a cheat sheet from the Independent. The bad new is it is about 20 times more potent as CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The good is that it decays after around 12 years. But it fails to mention that it probably decays to CO2, so that is only the start of the story. Also both those figures are quoted quite variably in the various papers relating to this story. For instance the lifespan has been quoted at between 6 and 20 years, depending on conditions.



That's serious. So how much of this stuff is there?

A definitive study was published in September entitled Vulnerability of Permafrost Carbon to Climate Change: Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle which tells just about everything you could want to know on this subject. This estimates the total soil carbon in the northern circumpolar permafrost zone to be 1672 petagrams (Pg; 1 Pg = 1 billion metric tons), with 277 Pg of that in peat-lands. This doubled previous estimates, which means all previous climate modelling will be way out in this respect.

To put it in context 1672 petagrams is considered to be twice as much as currently exists in the atmosphere:

Overall, this permafrost C[arbon] pool estimate is more than twice the size of the entire atmospheric C[arbon] pool, and it is more than double previous estimates of high-latitude soil C[arbon](Gorham 1991, Jobbágy and Jackson 2000). The 0–3 m permafrost- zone soil C[arbon] estimated here at 1024 Pg represents a large fraction of world soil C[arbon] stocks; global soil C[arbon] stocks from 0 to 3 m depth (peatlands not included) have been estimated to be 2300 Pg (Jobbágy and Jackson 2000).

Twice as much as is up there now – that's curtains!

Global average greenhouse gases are currently at 385 ppm CO2 equivalent. Hypothetically if all that carbon is released it would treble that to 1155 ppm.

Well it all depends on what happens - but it sure doesn't look reassuring, to put it mildly. On thawing there will be a big spike as the gases that are currently trapped by the permafrost cap are released in large quantity. But most of this carbon is held in biological material requiring decomposition by microbes to release it, which is considered to be the dominant continuous process. Fire is the dominant episodic one.

In combination with dry conditions or increased water infiltration, thawing and fires could, given the right set of circumstances, act together to expose and transfer permafrost C[arbon] to the atmosphere very rapidly. Lastly, fire can interact with decomposition by creating warmer soil conditions and deeper permafrost thaw, which in turn promote the loss of C[arbon] from increased microbial activity.

Clearly the result will depend on the amounts of methane released, and the rate at which it is. But when they say very rapidly, they mean just that. We now have data from Antarctic ice cores proving that this happened at least twice previously, and at astronomical rates.



1155 ppm CO2? Can you put that in context?

The European Carbon Trading Scheme wa hailed as a big success as the first working carbon trading scheme, with the cap set at 550 ppm CO2. But as it soon became clear this would make absolutely no difference to climate change other than being a quick road to the hot house, it wasn't such a success after all.

IPCC4 caused massive angst when it brought the figure down to 450 ppm at the start of 2007, but by that summer the science had moved on so fast that it was clear that wouldn't save us either.

Various authorities then suggested we needed to limit CO2 equivalent in the atmosphere to 425 ppm or 400 ppm.

The soundest thinking emerged this June when James Hansen, a monumental figure in climate science, brought the figure down again to 350 ppm. This was discussed at length by the pensive prognosticator in“Finding oil isn't the issue – it is whether we want to find it, burn it and all fry” . But it must be confessed with one omission – it failed to stress that the actual levels already stood above the 380 ppm mark – 30 ppm or more into the danger zone. Which only goes to suggest that we have simply been waiting for something to blow, which might go along way to explain why this is happening. It all fits Hansen's model perfectly.

To give it a time line, 100 Months is based upon an estimate on when we will pass 425 ppm CO2. That campaign commenced on 01 August, so we are currently in month 98. However as 425 ppm looks incredible as a safe limit, it is unlikely we have that long. But don't let that put you off the campaign – that aside it is a good campaign, one of the few positive things going on and is well worth supporting.

If you take 400 ppm CO2 as the red line, we currently stand at 385 ppm. Greenhouse gases have been growing at 2 ppm per year and appear to be accelerating slightly. In addition we now have this new and significant source of methane to add to that. Make your own estimates on that basis – but if you get to a figure of more than seven and a half years from now, you've cooked it.



How soon will we know?

Winter conditions will impede research, and the presence of ice will obscure large-scale surface observations. Divers and mini subs might still be able to check out the sub-surface activity and the sources of methane. Surface measurements of trapped methane build up should still be possible.

Despite that it is unlikely we will have a good idea before:

the scale of the release of methane during the sea ice break up is know (next spring);

open water will allow direct observation of the extent of the plumes over a large area (next summer);

the renewed scale of activity and whether this is accelerating significantly is clear (probably not until late summer).

unless one or more proves to be catastrophic in scale, in which case we shall know all the sooner.



Further developments

Incredibly, only one.

Two days later, on 25 September, the Independent followed up with Hundreds of methane 'plumes' discovered . This story dealt with entirely unrelated research which had also just discovered the release of methane for the first time in a completely different part of the Arctic, this time off Svalbard in Norway. However the details are quite different.

At Svalbard there has been no prior investigation, the locations were much deeper, and the methane sources are not currently capped by permafrost. So it is conservatively assumed the process there has been going on for some 15,000 years. But this does not rule out that the scale is increasing in response to climate change, and clearly the researchers are onto that.

Unlike the first research it was able to confirm the source as methane hydrates degassing, in line with James Hansen's predictions.

Here is an extract or two.

'Yesterday, researchers on board the British research ship the James Clark Ross said they had counted about 250 methane plumes bubbling from the seabed in an area of about 30 square miles in water less than 400 metes (1,300 feet) deep off the west coast of Svalbard. They have also discovered a set of deeper plumes at depths of about 1,200 metres at a second site near by. Analysis of sediments and seawater has confirmed the rising gas is methane...'


'An analysis of sediments taken from the seabed show that the gas is coming from methane hydrates – ice-like crystals where molecules of the gas are captured in "cages" made of water molecules, which become unstable as water pressures fall or temperatures rise.

'Professor Westbrook said the area surveyed off the west coast of Svalbard was very different to the area being studied by the Russian vessel because the water was much deeper and does not have a layer of permafrost sealing the methane under the seabed.

'It is likely that methane emissions off Svalbard have been continuous for about 15,000 years – since the last ice age – but as yet no one knows whether recent climactic shifts in the Arctic have begun to accelerate them to a point where they could in themselves exacerbate climate change, he said.

'"We were very excited when we found these plumes because it was the first evidence there was an active gas system in this part of the world. Now we know it's there we know we have to very seriously consider its effect."'

And that - oddly enough - seems to be the entire media coverage to date on the most important news item in all of history.

It does not seem to have been picked up on by other periodicals. Nor has the Independent, which has to be praised for getting onto the story so fast, followed up. Searching has not brought up any scientific papers by the scientists quoted – which in itself is not unreasonable given that there are huge data sets to be crunched and analysed, conclusions to be tested and the paper itself to be produced.

But may leave you wondering why, if you missed the Independent stories first time around, you should have to be depending on a haplessly late story in the pensive prognosticator, a bottom of the heap blog, to bring you news which is arguably the most important in your life, critical to your entire future and a major factor in every decision you subsequently make. And the same for the world collectively.

But I leave that with you to ponder. And shall try to deal with the question as to how we should respond as individuals in the next instalment.




Stay happy





Sources

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-the-methane-time-bomb-938932.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/hundreds-of-methane-plumes-discovered-941456.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-connor-the-ultimate-gas-leak-that-scientists-dreaded-938935.html

Arctic Meltdown - End of season report

Greetings

INTRODUCTION FOR NEW RECIPIENTS
If you are receiving one of these emails for the first time, we met (if only fleetingly) at the recent Wild Law weekend so have been added you to the distribution accordingly. Its purpose is flag up key issues relating to Wild Law, the precariousness of our position in the face of environmental threats and other information otherwise easily missed.The frequency is perforce very low, though there is likely to be a slight flurry of half a dozen or so in the short-term to catch up on several major developments.

Should you wish to get a better feel of what is involved, current and previous emails are posted on the pensive prognosticator where most of the traffic from the now defunct Wild Law forum hosted by forumality.com can also be found. All are welcome to post comments and discuss if so moved.

However if this is not to your wishes please let me know and I shall immediately remove you with apologies for the presumption.


PLAIN TEXT READERS
If you are reading this email as plain text and have difficulty locating links please view the blog copy posted at

http://pensiveprognosticator.blogspot.com

If you could also let me know I would be grateful, particularly if this expedient does not work well for you.



And so to the Arctic...


WINTER RETURNS


The arctic summer came to an end on 14 September when the thaw ceased and freezing conditions returned.

The ice is now reforming as the seas freeze and the snows fall, and assuming historical weather patterns continue to hold this will continue until next March, when the next thaw should commence.

This report summarises the main scientific conclusions at the season's end, where disquieting trends underly the superficial data on the extent of this summer's melt.

As this might have made for a rather dry read, it is worth noting that it also acts as as background for next email which contains developments of the gravest significance which broke at the end of September, and which rightly should have us all standing by at the emergency exits ready to abandon ship in short order. As it is so critical to our entire situation the intention is to get it to you as soon as I can.

All emphasis by bolding in the quotes which follow is mine.



ICE LOSS
In the end this summer's melt did not break the 2007 record, which is probably taken as reassurance that things aren't really so perilous after all in quarters where that is what people hope to believe. But it did come within 390,000 square kilometres or 9% of the all-time minimum, as these figures summarised by the International Polar Foundation in an article entitled Long Term Arctic Sea Ice Decline Continues show:

September 2005: 5.57 million km2
September 2007: 4.28 million km2
September 2008: 4.67 million km2

It all looks good until you realise that 2007 was 'perfect storm' conditions for melting, whilst this summer was for the most part somewhat unfavourable from that point of view. June and July were cool and cloudy, and the rates of melting indifferent. Nonetheless the 2008 September low was still 34% below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000, and only 9% shy of 2007.

The reality was exposed in August, when the summer finally got going, when the NASA Goddard Space Flight Institute reported the rate of melting was the fastest ever recorded - and at a gob-smacking rate, too:

'From August 1 to August 31, NASA data show that arctic sea ice extent declined at a rate of 32,700 square miles [84,693 km2] per day, compared to a rate of about 24,400 square miles [63,196 km2] per day in August 2007. Since measurements began, the arctic sea ice extent has declined at an average rate of 19,700 miles per day at the point when the extent reaches its annual minimum.'

The 2008 rate of melting represents an increase of 66% over the average quoted, and a massive 34% over what were unprecedented rates in 2007, as the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported on 02 October. One reason for this was the increasing vulnerability of the ice because with each year's losses, more and more of what remains is one year old ice at the start of the season. This simply does not have the thickness to resist melting conditions, so melts much faster than the perennial ice it has replaced.

Or, as they added:

'In March 2008, thin first-year ice covered a record high 73% of the Arctic Basin. While this might seem like a recovery of the ice, the large extent masked an important aspect of sea ice health; thin ice is more prone to melting out during summer. So, the widespread thin ice of spring 2008 set the stage for extensive ice loss over the melt season.'

And

“Warm ocean waters helped contribute to ice losses this year, pushing the already thin ice pack over the edge. In fact, preliminary data indicates that 2008 probably represents the lowest volume of Arctic sea ice on record, partly because less multiyear ice is surviving now, and the remaining ice is so thin.”

To beef up on that point, we only have to consider this key quote from a University of Colorado press release from January (i.e. not including this summer's melt)

'The team used satellite data going back to 1982 to reconstruct past Arctic sea ice conditions, concluding there has been a nearly complete loss of the oldest, thickest ice and that 58 percent of the remaining perennial ice is thin and only 2-to-3 years old, said the lead study author, Research Professor James Maslanik of CU-Boulder's Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research. In the mid-1980s, only 35 percent of the sea ice was that young and that thin according to the study, the first to quantify the magnitude of the Arctic sea ice retreat using data on the age of the ice and its thickness, he said.'

In fact the position at the end of this summer can best be appreciated by taking a look at the excellent images in the 24 September summary produced by NSIDC which illustrate graphically the extent of ice remaining, the predominance of young ice, and also the odd fact that the pattern of winds was partially responsible for the 2007 record not being broken this year. To qualify as ice, the sea has to contain a mere 15% of ice - there is not nearly as much as the raw figures quoted above suggest. This summer, the winds acted to disperse the ice over a large area of water, thus qualifying a greater area as ice, whilst in 2007 the opposite occured.



ARCTIC ICE SHELVES

The Arctic ice shelves faired very badly this year, and seem to be in terminal decline, as there is no foreseeable way they can recover short of the next ice age. Here is a repeat the BBC story reported in the last update which informs that:

'The ice shelves in Canada's High Arctic have lost a colossal area this year, scientists report.'

'The floating tongues of ice attached to Ellesmere Island, which have lasted for thousands of years, have seen almost a quarter of their cover break away.

'One of them, the 50 sq km (20 sq miles) Markham shelf, has completely broken off to become floating sea-ice.'

'As well as the complete breakaway of the Markham, the Serson shelf lost two sections totalling an estimated 122 sq km (47 sq miles), and the break-up of the Ward Hunt has continued.'

And, by way of interpretation

'Loss of ice in the Arctic, and in particular the extensive sea-ice, has global implications. The "white parasol" at the top of the planet reflects energy from the Sun straight back out into space, helping to cool the Earth.

'Further loss of Arctic ice will see radiation absorbed by darker seawater and snow-free land, potentially warming the Earth's climate at an even faster rate than current observational data indicates.'

The link has some telling before and after satellite images well worth a look too.



GREENLAND

Has also taken a big hit this year, and we found out that a lot more melting is going on there than we previously realised:


SMALL GLACIERS – NOT LARGE – ACCOUNT FOR MOST OF GREENLAND’S RECENT LOSS OF ICE, STUDY SHOWS

'The recent dramatic melting and breakup of a few huge Greenland glaciers have fueled public concerns over the impact of global climate change, but that isn’t the island’s biggest problem.
A new study shows that the dozens of much smaller outflow glaciers dotting Greenland’s coast together account for three times more loss from the island’s ice sheet than the amount coming from their huge relatives'

'...scientists at Ohio State University reported that nearly 75 percent of the loss of Greenland ice can be traced back to small coastal glaciers'

'Aside from Antarctica, Greenland has more ice than anywhere else on earth.'

While 09 October the IPF brought brought us the story Satellite Data Reveals Extreme Summer Snowmelt and Record Number of Melting Days in Northern Greenland

'The northern part of the Greenland Ice Sheet underwent extreme snowmelt during the summer of 2008, and large portions of the ice sheet experienced a record number of melting days

'Dr. Tedesco said that the melting, which lasted 18 days longer than previous maximum values and had a melting index three times greater than the 1979-2007 average, was "extremely interesting," as northern Greenland is usually much colder than southern Greenland, which experienced record melting in summer 2007.'

LAST WORDS

Dr Walt Meier of NSIDC at Boulder, Colorado in an interview with the BBC

'I think this summer has been more remarkable than last year, in fact, because last year we had really optimal conditions to melt a lot of ice.

'We had clear skies with the Sun blazing down, we had warm temperatures, and winds that pushed the ice edge northwards," he told BBC News.

'We didn't have any of this this year, and yet we still came within 10% of the record; so people might be tempted to call it a recovery, but I don't think that's a good term, we're still on a downwards trend towards ice-free Arctic summers.'

The NASA Goddard scientist previously quoted said

'Based on what we've learned over the last 30 years, we know that the perennial ice cover is now in trouble. You need more than just one winter of cooling for the ice to recover to the average extent observed since the measurements began. But the trend is going the other way. A warming Arctic causes the surface water to get warmer, which delays the onset of freeze up in the winter and leads to a shorter period of ice growth. Without the chance to thicken, sea ice becomes thinner and more vulnerable to continued melt.'

And two scientists here, quoted from a short and rather indifferent article by the New Scientist, which some might find useful nonetheless because it runs very quickly through the main drivers of ice loss.

'"We are now well outside the range of natural variability," says Meier. "It is clear from how low the ice extent has been recently, the significant long-term trend, and the way the ice-cover is responding to atmospheric conditions and ocean circulation, that we've entered an entirely new regime of the Arctic sea ice".

"I think most glaciologists would be very surprised if the Arctic went back to normal," agrees Graversen.'

From all of this is seems overridingly apparent that the loss of the Arctic is unstoppable and is likely to continue at an unprecedented rate. Unless we have a succession of extremely hard winters to beef up the perennial ice in a significant way - which in itself seems improbable because all the trends are in the opposite direction, as would be expected with global warming as it is - it seems likely that the next hot summer will cause loss of ice on a massive scale, and probably considerably more break up than we have so far seen. A few summers like that and there will be precious little left - with all the dire consequences that entails.


NEXT ISSUE
This summary has dealt with the physical extent of Arctic ice, which is critical for Earth's albedo, for the moderating effect on the planet's average temperature, for their role in the circulatory systems in the atmosphere and the ocean. It is also critical for being the sole habitat of animals like the polar bear and home to unique peoples such as the Inuits.

Yet for scientists considering climate change there remains another question which is perhaps the most loaded of all - the moderating effect on the surrounding environment. At the end of September the news no one ever wanted to hear broke in this area. Because of its potentially devastating nature I will cover it separately in the next newsletter and as quickly as practicalities make possible.

To close with something for the soul and the heart, here's a sublime lament for the Arctic, though he though he would have been entirely unconscious of that when he wrote it. Nice video too of what hangs in the balance. For those with 4.50 to spare out of the chaos.


With thanks for your attention

Polar Meltdown Update

"These changes are irreversible under the present climate and indicate that the environmental conditions that have kept these ice shelves in balance for thousands of years are no longer present"

Greetings

On the hoof at present so this is very much on the fly, but here are the latest on the meltdown of the Arctic. Together with the happy news that the amount of greenhouse gases likely to be released by thawing tundra is twice as much as has been previously estimated, and may release twice the amounts currently in the atmosphere.


1 ENN: Lowest ever sea ice in Arctic - 15 September

This story relates how it is now touch and go that this summer's minimum will be even lower than last year's, and thus the lowest ever recorded. That measure relates to the surface area, important for the albedo effect, survival of the polar bears etc. Perhaps more importantly for the continuation of the Arctic, the article also reports that the volume of ice is now almost certainly at the lowest ever known.


2 ISF: Permafrost: Frozen Organic Carbon Might be a Bigger Threat Than Previously Thought - 15 September

'Scientists say the amount of greenhouse gases released by widespread thawing of permafrost could be equivalent to twice the current amount of CO2 in the world's atmosphere.'


Enough said. There are links to a short paper on the major international study that has reached that conclusion.



3 New Scientist: Massive Canadian Arctic Ice Shelf Breaks Away - 03 September


Chillingly, this article is documents the end of a era in geological terms, as it details the terminal and irreversible break up of the Arctic ice shelves together with the loss of unique and unstudied ecosystems, never to return. All happening in your lifetime...

If you are looking for evidence that things are happening faster than predicted, the loss of ice from Ellesmere Island this summer was ten times the scientific estimates made as recently as 30 July this year.

Of its original 9000 sq kms, only 800 kms remain.



That's all for now. Happily it seems to bring things up to date, on a quick browse.


All the best

The Arctic becomes an island as ice melts

Hi again

It has been a while since an update on the meltdown of the Arctic (due to uncertainty about what was happening allied to a lack of connectivity), but having finally concluded the Climate Wars email just sent, I have just had time to turn up this.

Don't have much time to pontificate, but the Daily Telegraph of all papers seems to have had an exclusive on this story published on 31 August.

The Arctic becomes an island as ice melts

It reports the 'historic development' that

'The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human history as climate change has made it possible to circumnavigate the Arctic ice cap.'

as the North-West and North-East Passages are now both open, detaching the Arctic from Europe, Asia and the Americas.


As well-informed as ever on climate change, The Telegraph states

'shipping companies are already planning to exploit the first simultaneous opening of the routes since the beginning of the last Ice Age 125,000 years ago.'

Most scientists are of the opinion that the last ice age was considerably more recent, peaking around 11,000 years ago, but no doubt they have got it wrong.

It reports

'Prof Mark Serreze, a sea ice specialist at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in the US said the images suggested the Arctic may have entered a "death spiral" caused by global warming.'

As, heartbreakingly, it would seem have our original friends, the polar bears we all began aspiring to save, who

'have been spotted off Alaska trying to swim hundreds of miles to the retreating ice cap.'

It has been more widely reported that this year's melt is now the second biggest ever, and we are waiting to see if the remaining melt, which usually ceases mid-September, will top the record, leaving the smallest extent of Arctic ice ever.

It may well do so, and as this was not a particularly favourable summer in terms of the factors influencing melting, the writing seems to be ever larger on the wall.

Well done The Telegraph for leading on this. On the bright side, if this report also marks the beginning of the paper's historic conversion at least the tide of public opinion is starting to turn in a positive direction.

Try your hardest, folks, whilst the possibility remains...

Be happy

Gwynne Dyer - Climate Wars

'US and UK military strategists have already started planning to deal with the threats posed by climate change: failed states, famines, floods, new warzones, and millions and millions of refugees'


Greetings

Rather a long time ago I stated an intention:

'finally, if it remains possible, to draw the main environmental and geopolitical strands together to make some tentative predictions of the main factors likely to be at play, to give some indication of where we might be heading on present trends.'

Clearly I've spun out hopelessly on that to date, but happily this fellow has spared us all the trouble. More happily still, being a strategic analyst of such eminent standing he is syndicated to 175 journals in 45 countries, he does so with an authority that is infinitely more credible than any layperson could ever hope to muster.

Which is just as well given the logical conclusions anyone considering the human and planetary predicament objectively and with clarity must inevitably come to.

Gwynne Dyer gave an interview on the Late Night Live show on ABC (by approximation, the equivalent of the BBC in Oz) on 26 August. The billing for the programme states:

'US and UK military strategists have already started planning to deal with the threats posed by climate change: failed states, famines, floods, new warzones, and millions and millions of refugees'

It is the first I am aware of that someone of his stature and with access to the necessary privileged (ie classified) information has spoken out candidly and coherently on this subject, rather than partially and piecemeal.

The interview runs one by one through the main strategic risks such as food scarcity, water, mass migrations and so on, and analyses the likely geo-political effects on each region of the globe. As you would expect from a defence analyst, the tone is absolutely measured throughout, yet the conclusions are as sensational - read frightening - as any currently abroad.

As such it is an analysis of the deepest importance which I would encourage all to spare the 40 minutes necessary to listen to here.

But for the sceptical or more heavily pressed, a short yet telling report which went out on the Environmental Network News on 29 August can be found here.

As an appetite whetter, here is a snippet from the latter:

'there is a sense of suppressed panic from the scientific and military leaders.

"And it's not just the analysts. I spent the past year doing a very high-speed self-education job on climate change but I think I probably talked to most of the senior people in the field in a dozen countries," Dr Dyer said.

"They're scared, they're really frightened. Things are moving far faster than their models predicted. "You may have the Arctic ocean free of ice entirely in five years' time, in the late summer. Nobody thought that would happen until about the 2040s - even a couple of years ago." Dr Dyer says there is a sense of things moving much faster, and the military are picking up on that. He also says we will be playing climate change catch-up in the next 30 years. "The threshold you don't want to cross, ever, is 2 degrees Celsius hotter than it was at the beginning of the 1990s," he said.

"That is a margin we have effectively already used up more than half of. It would require pretty miraculous cooperation globally and huge cuts in emissions." And if the world does not decarbonise by 2050, you don't want to be there, according to Dr Dyer. "My kids will and I don't think that is going to be a pleasant prospect at all, because once you go past 2 degrees - and you could get past 2 degrees by the 2040s without too much effort - things start getting out of control," he said. "The ocean starts giving back to the atmosphere the carbon dioxide it absorbed.

That world is a world where crop failures are normal.'

Inevitably he discusses James Hansen's critical role in alerting us to this and Hansen's current view that the safe limit for CO2 equivalent in the atmosphere is 350 ppm (covered with references in my email of 02 May entitled “Finding oil isn't the issue – it is whether we want to find it, burn it and all fry” - do ask if you would like it resent). According to this interview we are currently at 387 ppm. That is not a typo.

He also considers that the current consensus to be that 425 ppm is the ultimate threshold beyond which you may as well forget about a future because everything blows. It is pertinent to note here that the fourth IPCC report, which remains current in that all political solutions are based upon it but is now hopelessly out of date scientifically, considers 450 ppm to be the goal to be aimed for. That is not a typo either. Allow the implications of those figures to permeate your consciousness.

Also:

'"[There will be] huge falls in the amount of crops that you can grow because there isn't the rain and it's too hot," he said. "That will apply particularly to the Mediterranean... and so not just the north African countries, but also the ones on the northern side of the Mediterranean. The ones in the European Union like Spain and Italy and Greece and the Balkans and Turkey are going to be suffering huge losses in their ability to support their populations.'

He also predicts the militarisation of the US border with Mexico within ten years.

The rest I leave for you.

In passing, I have had no success in downloading the podcast from ABC, but the streaming works perfectly via either channel offered; and there are a few inaccuracies in the ENN report - for instance the date of the broadcast, which is possibly something to do with the dateline.


Finally, in response to some very kind requests to make these discussions more widely available they have been posted on a rather rudimentary blog. It is still in beta and rather rough round the edges, but functional. All the material circulated over the last year or so is there (after a long list of vibes, hopefully to inspire, which speak of our predicament), including that originally posted on the now defunct Wild Law forum. In addition there is an RSS feed which, if you subscribe to it, has the advantage of alerting you to new postings automatically as they appear. All at

http://pensiveprognosticator.blogspot.com


Hope it helps

Stay happy

'Too Late to Avoid Global Warming' Say Scientists

This article was published in the Independent yesterday.

It reports on the latest study issued by the IPCC on 19 September.



Key points in the IPCC report are:

‘A rise of two degrees centigrade in global temperatures…is now "very unlikely" to be avoided.’

‘Very unlikely’ means a ‘1% to 10% chance of limiting the global temperature rise to two degrees centigrade or less’.

A two degree rise is considered to be

‘the threshold for catastrophic climate change which will expose millions to drought, hunger and flooding…’

It

‘put the inevitability of drastic global warming in the starkest terms yet, stating that major impacts…are unavoidable and the focus must be on adapting life to survive the most devastating changes.’

"If warming is not kept below two degrees centigrade, which will require the strongest mitigation efforts, and currently looks very unlikely to be achieved, the [sic] substantial global impacts will occur, such as species extinctions, and millions of people at risk from drought, hunger, flooding."

The article states:

‘For more than a decade, EU countries led by Britain have set a rise of two degrees centigrade or less in global temperatures above pre-industrial levels as the benchmark after which the effects of climate become devastating, with crop failures, water shortages, sea-level rises, species extinctions and increased disease.’

Two years ago, an authoritative study predicted there could be as little as 10 years before this "tipping point" for global warming was reached, adding a rise of 0.8 degrees had already been reached with further rises already locked in because of the time lag in the way carbon dioxide – the principal greenhouse gas – is absorbed into the atmosphere.


NB that means only 8 years from now.



The IPCC report states

‘the effects of this rise are being felt sooner than anticipated with the poorest countries and the poorest people set to suffer the worst of shifts in rainfall patterns, temperature rises and the viability of agriculture across much of the developing world.’

The Met Office scientist who co-chaired the committee said:

"Ten years ago we were talking about these impacts affecting our children and our grandchildren. Now it is happening to us."

‘…he believed it would now be "very difficult" to achieve the target…’

and

" You cannot mitigate your way out of this problem... The choice is between a damaged world or a future with a severely damaged world."

Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, said that 2015 was the last year in which the world could afford a net rise in greenhouse gas emissions, after which "very sharp reductions" are required.



The article contains many moving examples of the devastation this would mean in practice, many of which are drawn directly from the IPCC report. Perhaps the most stark example is:

‘Asia: Up to a billion people will suffer water shortages as supplies dwindle with the melting of Himalayan glaciers.’

Others relevant to this topic are:

‘Polar regions: The seasonal thaw of permafrost will increase by 15 per cent and the overall extent of the permafrost will shrink by about 20 per cent. Indigenous communities such as the Inuit face loss of traditional lifestyle.’

And no doubt the polar bears, too.

'Small islands: Low-lying islands are particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels with the Maldives already suffering land loss.’

The IPCC report would simply seem to reconfirm the argument set out in the topic ‘Is there time for Wild Law?’

In terms of averting catastrophe the answer is clearly no. But that merely reinforces the urgency for its universal introduction at the earliest possible opportunity. We simply cannot go on like this a moment longer.

The changes inherent in a Wild Law system of environmental and economic regulation are required with the utmost urgency to mitigate the effects of what we have already irreversibly done.

And scandalously are continuing to do with absolute irresponsibility.

It also hammers home the futility of waiting for governments – or anyone else for that matter – to act.

There is now an absolute moral imperative on each and every one of us to do all we can to put our lives in order without prevarication or excuses, to minimise our ecological footprint to the absolute in recognition that many are yet to start doing so, and to try to just as hard as we can to convince everyone we know to do the same.

It may sound drastic. But on the very best science the outcome now seems inevitable, and it would be foolish and irresponsible – as well as ultimately self-destructive – to do otherwise.


http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2976669.ece



.