Some climate scientists, in a shift, link weather to global warming

Drought and intense heat in the last decade leads some to believe there's enough evidence to establish a statistical pattern. It's a break with mainstream scientific thought

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-weather-climate-change-20121013,0,2353619.sto

Arctic Ice Melt record hasn't just been broken, it has been smashed!

The vast polar ice cap, which regulates the Earth's temperature and has been a permanent fixture in our understanding of how the world works, has this year retreated further and faster than anyone expected. The previous record, set in 2007, was officially broken on 27 August when satellite images averaged over five days showed the ice then extended 4.11 million sq km, a reduction of nearly 50% compared to just 40 years ago.
But since 27 August, the ice just kept melting – at nearly 40,000 sq km a day until a few days ago. Satellite pictures this weekend showed the cap covering only 3.49m sq km. This year, 11.7m sq km of ice melted, 22% more than the long-term average of 9.18m sq km. The record minimum extent is now likely to be formally called on Monday by the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Colorado.
The record hasn't just been broken, it's been smashed to smithereens, adding weight to predictions that the Arctic may be ice-free in summer months within 20 years, say British, Italian and American-based scientists on board the Arctic Sunrise. They are shocked at the speed and extent of the ice loss.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/14/decline-sea-ice-arctic

Rate of Arctic summer sea ice loss is 50% higher than predicted

New satellite images show polar ice coverage dwindling in extent and thickness

Sea ice in the Arctic is disappearing at a far greater rate than previously expected, according to data from the first purpose-built satellite launched to study the thickness of the Earth's polar caps.

Preliminary results from the European Space Agency's CryoSat-2 probe indicate that 900 cubic kilometres of summer sea ice has disappeared from the Arctic ocean over the past year.

This rate of loss is 50% higher than most scenarios outlined by polar scientists and suggests that global warming, triggered by rising greenhouse gas emissions, is beginning to have a major impact on the region. In a few years the Arctic ocean could be free of ice in summer, triggering a rush to exploit its fish stocks, oil, minerals and sea routes.

Using instruments on earlier satellites, scientists could see that the area covered by summer sea ice in the Arctic has been dwindling rapidly. But the new measurements indicate that this ice has been thinning dramatically at the same time. For example, in regions north of Canada and Greenland, where ice thickness regularly stayed at around five to six metres in summer a decade ago, levels have dropped to one to three metres.

"Preliminary analysis of our data indicates that the rate of loss of sea ice volume in summer in the Arctic may be far larger than we had previously suspected," said Dr Seymour Laxon, of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at University College London (UCL), where CryoSat-2 data is being analysed. "Very soon we may experience the iconic moment when, one day in the summer, we look at satellite images and see no sea ice coverage in the Arctic, just open water."

The consequences of losing the Arctic's ice coverage, even for only part of the year, could be profound. Without the cap's white brilliance to reflect sunlight back into space, the region will heat up even more than at present. As a result, ocean temperatures will rise and methane deposits on the ocean floor could melt, evaporate and bubble into the atmosphere. Scientists have recently reported evidence that methane plumes are now appearing in many areas. Methane is a particularly powerful greenhouse gas and rising levels of it in the atmosphere are only likely to accelerate global warming. And with the disappearance of sea ice around the shores of Greenland, its glaciers could melt faster and raise sea levels even more rapidly than at present.

Professor Chris Rapley of UCL said: "With the temperature gradient between the Arctic and equator dropping, as is happening now, it is also possible that the jet stream in the upper atmosphere could become more unstable. That could mean increasing volatility in weather in lower latitudes, similar to that experienced this year."

Full article : http://gu.com/p/39khm

Alaskan Arctic villages hit hard by climate change

POINT HOPE, Alaska — Fermented whale’s tail doesn’t taste the same when the ice cellars flood.

Whaling crews in this Arctic coast village store six feet of tail — skin, blubber and bone — underground from spring until fall. The tail freezes slowly while fermenting and taking on the flavor of the earth.

Paying homage to their connection to the frozen sea, villagers eat the delicacy to celebrate the moment when the Arctic’s ice touches shore.

But climate change, with its more intense storms, melting permafrost and soil erosion, is causing the ice cellars to disintegrate. Many have washed out to sea in recent decades. The remaining ones regularly flood in the spring, which can spoil the meat and blubber, and release scents that attract polar bears.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/alaskan-arctic-villages-hit-hard-by-climate-change/2012/08/05/e9dbd4a6-d5b0-11e1-a9e3-c5249ea531ca_story.html

Europe looks to open up Greenland for natural resources extraction

Melting of icy surface opens up possibility of extracting rare earth metals and gemstones, but many fear it could destroy the Arctic. Europe is looking to open a new frontier in the ever more urgent quest for new natural resources – the pristine icy wastes of Greenland. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/31/europe-greenland-natural-resources?newsfeed=true

Green Cross denounces Syrian threat to use chemical weapons, calls for global abolition of such arms

25 July, 2012/Geneva: Syria’s acknowledgment that it would be prepared to use chemical weapons must be denounced by all parties and, instead, there must be a reinvigorated international drive to rid the world of these weapons of mass destruction, according to Green Cross International.

“Chemical weapons must be abolished as called for by the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC),” says Dr. Paul Walker, Director of Green Cross International’s programme on Environmental Security and Sustainability. “Only with true universality of this historic treaty regime will we all be able to celebrate a world free of chemical weapons.”

“Syria’s recent comments on its willingness to use chemical weapons under certain circumstances have only served to increase tensions to a new level in the Middle East,” says Dr. Walker. “The fear that such weapons could be used will only lead some parties to consider alternative means to respond to the on-going crisis in the country, which could lead to a further deterioration in peace and security for thousands, if not millions, of Syrians and people living in neighbouring countries.”

The 188 States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention have agreed to declare and destroy any stockpiles of chemical weapons they may hold and any facilities that produced them, as well as any chemical weapons they abandoned on the territory of other States Parties in the past. States Parties have also agreed not to develop, produce, or transfer chemical agents; to participate in regular, on-site inspections of chemical industry; and to report annually to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague on dual-use chemicals and national implementation.

In 1968 Syria acceded to the 1925 Geneva Protocol which prohibits use of chemical agents in warfare.  However, Syria is among six States that have not signed nor acceded to the CWC. The others are Angola, Egypt, North Korea, Somalia and South Sudan. Israel and Myanmar have signed the Convention, but have not yet ratified it. Dr. Walker emphasized that “the accession of Syria to the CWC would be a major step forward in encouraging both Egypt and Israel to join the abolition regime, and in making progress towards the United Nation’s proposed weapons-of-mass-destruction-free-zone in the Middle East.”

Before Syria’s recent comments on chemical weapons, seven countries had declared chemical weapons stockpiles to the OPCW.  Three of them - Albania, India and South Korea - have completed their stockpile destruction, and three more – Libya, Russia, and the United States – continue to work on destruction.  Iraq has yet to begin its destruction programme of war remnants left by United Nations inspectors after the 1991 Gulf War.  More than 18,000 metric tons of declared chemical weapons are currently stockpiled in these four countries, down from the more than 72,000 tons recorded in 1986.

Green Cross International (GCI), founded by former Soviet Union President and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mikhail Gorbachev in 1993, is an independent non-profit and nongovernmental organization working to address the inter-connected global challenges of security, poverty eradication and environmental degradation through a combination of advocacy and local projects. GCI is headquartered in Geneva and has a growing network of national organizations in over 30 countries.

The Green Cross Environmental Security and Sustainability Programme has played a leading role globally in the safe and verified elimination of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, in the United States, Russia, and elsewhere.  It has also established the international Chemical Weapons Convention Coalition at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to promote full implementation of the treaty regime.

Back from Rio, 20 thoughts and notes gathered at and after the Rio+20 conference (in no particular order):

1. A success, some important progress has been made
2. A failure of epic proportions, not much was accomplished, not worth holding large summits like this
3. Assertiveness of developing nations, minorities and individuals
4. Lack of vision, lack of leadership, results in near worthless document
5. As were Copenhagen and other conferences, Rio+20 was not about a document or treaty anyway
6. Rio+20 is a catalyst, another starting point to do more, a call to action since governments do nothing
7. Incredible energy and enthusiasm of individuals: Rio showed a hint of what they can do
8. Growing capacity of local organizations and corporations to take effective environmental action bypassing governments
9. Europe although economically weakened, much more active and influential than the US
10. Activity outside the main negotiating sessions produced hundreds of side agreements bypassing governments
11. Like any trade show, the opportunity to meet people, make announcements, and the promise of many future smaller events
12. Addressing the planet’s most serious problems is more urgent than ever
13. The solution is us, not governments
14. One bright area on oceans (protection from pollution, overfishing and acidification), although no treaty to protect ocean biodiversity
15. Countries, communities and companies can and will take action  themselves
16. World’s people can assert their will and power to fix our problems
17. 50,000 people came to Rio. Hundreds of thousands more participated remotely. They are spreading the word.
18. Rio was a pause, to make us consider the world we are leaving to future generations
19. Collectively, we must force government leaders and corporations to do what is right for our planet and its resources.
20. But let’s not wait for them...

And one of my favorite (anonymous) quotes:

“There is no greater fool than the one who does nothing because he thinks he can do so little”

We Have Met the Solution and It Is Us

By FRANCES BEINECKE and TRIP VAN NOPPEN

Published: June 22, 2012

RIO DE JANEIRO

IT would be easy to conclude that the Rio+20 Earth Summit was a failure. That would be wrong.

Our planet is getting hotter and more crowded with every passing day. Addressing its most serious problems is more urgent than ever.

So what did government negotiators do at the summit meeting in Brazil, which concluded yesterday? They spent months negotiating a document that ended up being watered down almost to the point of worthlessness because of their lack of vision and their governments’ lack of leadership.

But as presidents of two major environmental groups who attended the Earth Summit, we disagree that Rio+20 was a failure.

Certainly, the document produced by negotiators was not even close to what it should be.

It did not deliver the commitments we need to reduce carbon pollution and increase clean energy development. It did not do enough to address shortages of food and water and other threats to a sustainable future resulting from population growth, our governments’ woeful failure to collectively address climate change and the rapacious abuse of our natural resources.

It did offer some bright spots — such as progress on protecting the high seas from pollution, overfishing and acidification — although it left other dire threats unaddressed. Chief among these was failing to negotiate a treaty to protect ocean biodiversity. But what we must remember is this: Rio+20 is not just about a document. Rio+20 is a catalyst. It is the starting point for change, not the finish line. It is a call to action for all of us who now realize that we can’t just rely on government negotiators or verbose and hyper-compromised documents to save our planet.

We must do it ourselves.

But here’s what else we witnessed at Rio+20:

We can do this ourselves.

We saw in the myriad Rio+20-related announcements from countries, communities and companies around the globe that they were taking action themselves — irrespective of any United Nations document. World development banks agreed to invest in a cleaner transportation network, for instance. Developing countries agreed to phase out incandescent light bulbs. Australia, Mexico and other coastal countries committed to protecting their irreplaceable seas.

We heard it from the young people who spoke at Rio+20 — sometimes through tears and with cracking voices — about the fears they have for the world we’re leaving for them.

Most of all, we recognized that the world’s people can assert their will and power to fix our problems.

The fact that 50,000 people came to Rio and that hundreds of thousands more participated virtually through technologies like YouTube and Twitter made that loud and clear. The incredible energy and the enthusiasm they demonstrated is only a hint of what individuals can do.

What Rio+20 did was shine a spotlight on the environmental and sustainable development issues we all know we must address. For at least a few days, it forced us all to pause, take stock and think about the legacy we’re leaving our children.

Now that the speeches are done and the negotiations are over, and the world’s leaders are heading home, it’s time for the rest of us to take action.

Individually, we must be efficient with the energy and the natural resources we consume and be ever cognizant of what the decisions we make today will mean for our children’s planet tomorrow.

Collectively, we must force our government leaders and our corporations to do what is right for our planet and its resources. We must press them to implement the commitments they made at Rio+20, and the commitments they made in other international agreements as well. And we must hold them accountable when they don’t. As we learned at Rio+20, government negotiators and thick documents can’t save the planet. But as we also learned, we can, and we must do it now.

Frances G. Beinecke is president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Trip Van Noppen is president of Earthjustice.

Rio+20: Unsustainable outcome reached at UN Conference on Sustainable Development

Rio+20: Unsustainable outcome reached at UN Conference on Sustainable Development

22 June, 2012/Rio de Janeiro: Political leaders attending the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development have failed to meet the pressing environmental and social challenges that the world faces today, according to Green Cross International President Alexander Likhotal.

“Rio+20 demonstrated a disappointing lack of leadership,” says Mr Likhotal. “The outcome document is grossly lacking in concrete action.”

“Rio+20 represented a unique possibility for the world, but what started as a zero draft outcome document has seemingly evolved into a zero result statement by today’s end of the conference.”

Green Cross International, which was founded by President Mikhail Gorbachev following the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, was calling upon the leaders to update the view of economic development, and develop a roadmap for transformative action to put the global community onto a path towards truly sustainable development.

Green Cross Brazil President Celso Claro de Oliveira says: “Rio+20 has hidden its lack of results behind the fig leaf of the ‘green economy’, but what does green economy actually mean? It could be relevant if it provides a vision to reorient the global economy from the ever-growing marketization of Nature to the needs of the poorest - in a way to meet those needs within the environmental limits of Nature.”

“But for many political leaders, ‘green economy’ is merely a convenient term used to rekindle the same global economy with some environmental-friendly intentions or actions on the side,” Mr de Oliveira says.

“Greening of the economy is not a silver bullet. It should be just one part of what must be a multi-layered response. It is just a step in the direction of sustainability. But adequate and sufficient attention should be given to provision of security, poverty eradication and protection of Nature.”

However, concludes Mr. Likhotal, the overall Rio+20 event, which included strong civil society participation, is not a complete failure. “The Conference’s primary outcome is not about agreements that were reached, or rather not reached, the relative merits and demerits of which will be debated endlessly in the months ahead.

“The most important Rio outcome is the global realization that the balance of things on this planet has shifted irrevocably. Rio marks a shift in the way the world sees, understands and governs itself, something that was vividly shown by the parallel People's Summit of grassroots, civil society networks.”

Green Cross International (GCI) is an independent non-profit and nongovernmental organization working to address the inter-connected global challenges of security, poverty eradication and environmental degradation through a combination of advocacy and local projects. GCI is headquartered in Geneva and has a growing network of national organizations in over 30 countries.


Contacts for interviews, information:

• Paul Garwood, Green Cross International: paul.garwood@gci.ch, Swiss mob: +41797760454, Brazil mob (until 15 June):  +55 2182066955, Skype: paul.garwood
• Rebecca Maia Pachec, Green Cross Brazil: rebeccamaia.greencrossbrasil@gmail.com, +55 61 96480060
  

Website: www.gcint.org <http://www.gcint.org/>
Follow Green Cross at Rio+20 <http://www.gcint.org/rioplus20> , on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Green-Cross-International/110761388763> , Twitter <http://twitter.com/greencrossint> , YouTube <http://www.youtube.com/user/GreenCrossInt>  and Flickr <http://www.flickr.com/photos/greencrossinternational/5736923390/>

Watch Severn Cullis-Suzuki's first speech as part of her on-the-ground involvement at Rio+20 last night with her closing remarks on climate change, the backsliding of Rio+20 and inter-generatioal action to our Green Cross Returns to Rio event at: http://bit.ly/Md7LvP <http://t.co/OWOg15tM> 

According to the Paris-based International Energy Agency... operating with a near-zero-impact environmental footprint would add about 7 percent... to the typical cost of a well in mainland USA...
more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/natural-gas-by-the-book.html

A Message From a Republican Meteorologist on Climate Change

"My climate epiphany wasn't overnight, and it had nothing to do with Al Gore."
I'm going to tell you something that my Republican friends are loath to admit out loud: climate change is real. I'm a moderate Republican, fiscally conservative; a fan of small government, accountability, self-empowerment and sound science. I am not a climate scientist. I'm a Penn State meteorologist, and the weather maps I'm staring at are making me very uncomfortable. No, you're not imagining it: we've clicked into a new and almost foreign weather pattern. To complicate matters I'm in a small, frustrated and endangered minority: a Republican deeply concerned about the environmental sacrifices some are asking us to make to keep our economy powered-up. It's ironic. The root of the word conservative is "conserve"....  more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-douglas/republican-climate-change_b_1374900.html

Combien d’eau y a-t-il sur Terre ?

L'infographie est parlante. Il faut imaginer qu'un puissant sorcier a, grâce à un maléfice habile, siphonné toute l'eau présente sur Terre et l'a réunie dans une sphère, un petit satellite liquide posé sur notre globe soudain asséché. D'un coup d'un seul, notre planète bleue est devenue brune et il y a comme une surprise à voir les océans, mers, lacs, calottes polaires, rivières et glaciers, qui recouvrent en temps normal plus de 70 % des 510 millions de km² que compte la Terre, se résumer à un cochonnet de seulement 1 385 km de diamètre, soit à peu près la distance qui sépare Paris d'Alger à vol d'oiseau.
L'eau sur Terre est un peu comme une feuille de papier cadeau recouvrant une boule de bowling. Depuis l'espace on ne voit presque qu'elle, elle donne sa couleur à notre planète mais ne représente qu'une minuscule fraction (0,023 %) de sa masse. Combien y en a-t-il exactement ? Si l'on revient à notre image, cette bulle contient 1,386 milliard de km³ d'H₂0. Comment se répartit-elle ? Les plus gros fournisseurs, et de loin, sont évidemment les océans et les mers, avec 1,338 milliard de km³. Ils arrivent loin devant deux quasi ex-aequo (environ 24 millions de km³ chacun) : les calottes polaires (Groenland et Antarctique), glaciers et neiges éternelles d'un côté, l'eau contenue dans le sous-sol et dans la croûte terrestre de l'autre. Les miettes qui restent reviennent, dans l'ordre décroissant, aux glaces du pergélisol, aux lacs, à l'humidité des sols, à l'atmosphère, aux marais, aux cours d'eau et, enfin, à toute cette eau si importante pour nous, celle qui est prisonnière des organismes vivants, celle sans qui vous et moi ne serions que des momies. On estime que toute la vie terrestre regroupe un peu plus de 1 100 km³ de cette eau dite biologique.
A lire cette longue énumération, on s'est sans doute aperçu que l'eau douce ne représente qu'une part minoritaire du total : environ 35 millions de km³. C'est la perle à droite du cochonnet sur la carte ci-dessous. Mais, dans cette petite portion, la plus grande partie de l'eau est hors d'atteinte des êtres vivants, soit parce qu'elle est congelée dans les inlandsis, soit parce qu'elle est enfouie dans les entrailles de la Terre. Si l'on ne prend en considération que l'eau facile d'accès, celle que l'on trouve dans les lacs non salés, les marais, les fleuves et les rivières, il ne reste plus grand chose. Avez-vous repéré le petit point bleu sur cette deuxième infographie, sous la perle dont je viens de parler ?
 
Cette tête d'épingle a moins de 60 km de diamètre. Elle contient toute l'eau douce aisément disponible pour la vie terrestre. C'est dans cette minuscule réserve que 7 milliards d'hommes puisent pour boire, irriguer leurs cultures, abreuver leurs animaux d'élevage, faire tourner leurs usines, alimenter leurs centrales électriques, etc. Et, si on met Homo sapiens de côté, quantité d'autres organismes vivants en dépendent aussi. C'est en voyant ce genre d'image que l'on s'aperçoit mieux, qu'entre la sécheresse et nous il n'y a presque rien. Que l'eau est plus rare qu'il n'y paraît. Parce que la Terre est une brune qui se teint en bleu.

Pierre Barthélémy (@PasseurSciences sur Twitter)

(Crédit : Jack Cook, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.)