Sunday, February 25, 2007

Climate change: scientists warn it may be too late to save the ice caps

I've felt for awhile that it's no longer possible to prevent global warming from happening. All we can do is try to limit the damage or prepare in advance so that whatever needs to be done is more efficient. Articles like this prove my point. On a brighter note, I like the new ads on television that raise awareness of global warming. Especially the one with the guy on the train tracks who says that global warming won't affect him, he gets off as you hear the train coming and behind him you see a little girl right in the path of the train. Very effective, and explains perfectly how serious this is and how we're obligated to do what we can. Now if only this issue can move from the ads to the actual news. The day where global warming displaces 24/7 coverage of a washed-up dead junkie supermodel and that psycho hose beast Britney Spears cannot come soon enough.

Climate change: scientists warn it may be too late to save the ice caps David Adam, environment correspondent
Monday February 19, 2007

Guardian

A critical meltdown of ice sheets and severe sea level rise could be inevitable because of global warming, the world's scientists are preparing to warn their governments. New studies of Greenland and Antarctica have forced a UN expert panel to conclude there is a 50% chance that widespread ice sheet loss "may no longer be avoided" because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Such melting would raise sea levels by four to six metres, the scientists say. It would cause "major changes in coastline and inundation of low-lying areas" and require "costly and challenging" efforts to move millions of people and infrastructure from vulnerable areas. The previous official line, issued in 2001, was that the chance of such an event was "not well known, but probably very low".

The melting process could take centuries, but increased warming caused by a failure to cut emissions would accelerate the ice sheets' demise, and give nations less time to adapt to the consequences. Areas such as the Maldives would be swamped and low-lying countries such as the Netherlands and Bangladesh, as well as coastal cities including London, New York and Tokyo, would face critical flooding.

The warning appears in a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the likely impacts of global warming and will be published in April. A final draft of the report's summary-for-policymakers chapter, obtained by the Guardian, says: "Very large sea level rises that would result from widespread deglaciation of Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets imply major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas.

"Relocating populations, economic activity and infrastructure would be costly and challenging. There is medium confidence that both ice sheets would be committed to partial deglaciation for a global average temperature increase greater than 1-2C, causing sea level rise of 4-6m over centuries to millennia." Medium confidence means about a five in 10 chance.

The revelation comes as a new report points out that greenhouse gas emissions running into hundreds of millions of tonnes have not been disclosed by Britain's biggest businesses, masking the full extent of the UK's contribution to global warming. According to a report by Christian Aid, only 16 of Britain's top 100 listed companies are meeting the government's most elementary reporting guidelines on greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, almost 200m tonnes of damaging CO2 is estimated to be missing from the annual reports of FTSE 100 companies. The figure is more than the annual reported emissions of Pakistan and Greece combined.

This month the IPCC published a separate study on the science of climate change, which concluded that humans are "very likely" to be responsible for most of the recent warming, and that average temperatures would probably increase by 4C this century if emissions continue to rise. Even under its most optimistic scenario, based on a declining world population and a rapid switch to clean technology, temperatures are still likely to rise by 1.8C.

The new report is expected to say this means there is "a significant probability that some large-scale events (eg deglaciation of major ice sheets) may no longer be avoided due to historical greenhouse gas emissions and the inertia of the climate system". Scientists involved with the IPCC process cannot talk publicly about its contents before publication. But a senior author on the report said: "It's not rocket science to realise that with the numbers coming out from the IPCC [science report], the warming by the end of the century is enough to do that." The report's conclusion poses a conundrum for governments of how to address a problem that is inevitable but may not occur for hundreds or thousands of years. "That's for the policy makers to decide but it really is a very difficult question," the source said. "Those are moral questions and the answer you give will depend very much on which part of the world you live in."

Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Arizona, said the key question was not whether the ice sheets would break up, but how quickly. Some models suggest rapid melting that would bring sea level rises of more than a metre per century. "That would be much harder for us to cope with," he says.

The IPCC science report predicted sea level rises of up to 0.59m by the end of the century. But that does not include the possible contribution from ice sheets, because the experts judged it too unpredictable to forecast over short timescales.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

I Sexed Up my Blog

Yes, in the words of Tony Blair, I "sexed up" my blog. It's still not where I want it to be, but I feel a few adjustments have added a lot. I still need much assistance on the rally that I'm planning for April 14. Someone who is bilingual (English and Spanish) would be very helpful, as Patchogue is a heavily Spanish area and I'd like to print up flyers in Spanish that can be put up in the local bodegas and other Latino owned businesses.

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Update on Global Warming rally

Just to give a heads-up on the rally I have planned. It will be on Saturday, April 14, and hopefully it will take place at the brick courtyard where the military recruitors and Northfork Bank are, in Patchogue. I sent a letter to the Patchogue Village Board. It will be an informational gathering, hopefully with volunteers to hand out pamphlets and a few speakers. More info as it develops.

Tuesday, February 6, 2007

Sorry

I'm really sorry. I know it's been a month since I last updated. What can I say? Typical busy stuff going on. I know that's not really an excuse, but it's the best I can come up with. Anyway, there's going to be a day of national action surrounding global warming. It's called Step It Up, and I'm planning an event in Patchogue. At this point, I'm not sure I'll go for a march. I think just a rally with a few speakers and activities would be much more effective, as my main goal is drawing in those who aren't political and aren't informed on this as a hot topic. It's on Saturday, April 14, which is also Earth Day. If you want to get involved, please contact me at jblanch3@optonline.net.

Saturday, January 6, 2007

Record-breaking day

Hi,

Today, we had a record high of 65 degrees (January 6). It looks like my last blog will be accurate. I opened up my Newsday today, and there was what I call a "creampuff" article about the springlike weather. It just talked about how flowers were blooming already, shit like that. Nothing about global warming. The closest the paper came to talking about weather patterns at all was in an inset, and only then it mentioned this year's El Nino. Weather reports on television? That's another thing, they'll boast about the warm weather and they might mention the El Nino now and then. Absolutely nothing about global warming.

This is what's frustrating about being an activist, especially on this topic of debate. I work at a job where I talk to people a lot, random people coming in, buying stuff. I heard a lot of raves and applause over the beautiful, spring-like weather. No concern, not even a mention, of global warming. I thought the Gore movie would have helped finally bring the issue into the mainstream. No such luck. I'm more convinced than ever that there is a governmental and corporate conspiracy (probably more corporate) to keep mum on global warming, although it's long since past the moment where it became an indisputible reality. But, why should any of us give a shit? It isn't likely that we're going to experience the effects and the consequences. And that's what it's all about, isn't it? As long as WE don't experience it... our kids and our grandkids will? Well, that's their problem.

Sorry for latching onto my soapbox. I need an original post now and then, linking to stuff gets old after awhile.

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Forecasters expect toasty 2007


LONDON, England (AP) -- A resurgent El Nino and persistently high levels of greenhouse gases are likely to make 2007 the world's hottest year ever recorded, British climate scientists said Thursday.

Britain's Meteorological Office said there was a 60 percent probability that 2007 would break the record set by 1998, which was 1.20 degrees over the long-term average.


Read the rest of the article at: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/04/britain.globalwarming.ap/index.html?section=cnn_lates

Monday, January 1, 2007

Climate of Denial

While surfing, I discovered a series of articles about global warming from Mother Jones magazine. This article was published last year, but it's still absolutely worth reading. It outlines how, even as much of the rest of the world has taken significant steps in lessening the effects of global warming, we have gone in the opposite direction. There are many reasons for this, but one this article argues is due to the pressure of lobbyists and talking heads who are paid to be in denial about global warming. And the way the corporate media presents a story is that one side is just as important and significant as the other, even if that one side has, like, two people speaking for it, while the other side has thousands. By the "other side", I mean the scientists and many other people who have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that global warming is real and poses a real danger to our future.

Climate of Denial
One morning in Kyoto, we won a round in the battle against global warming. Then special interests and pseudoscience snatched the truth away. What happened?

Bill McKibben
May/June 2005 Issue

It was around eight in the morning in the vast convention hall in Kyoto. The negotiations over a worldwide treaty to limit global warming gases, which were supposed to have ended the evening before, had gone on through the night. Drifts of paper—treaty drafts, industry talking points, environmentalist press releases—overflowed every wastebasket. Delegates in suits and ties were passed out on couches, noisily mouth breathing. And polite squadrons of workers were shooing people out of the hall so that some trade show—tool and die makers, I think—could set up its displays.


http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/mckibben_introduction.html