Oceans rising faster than expected as climate change exceeds grimmest models

By The Associated Press
Monday, November 23rd, 2009 -- 8:46 am
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

earthclouds2 Oceans rising faster than expected as climate change exceeds grimmest modelsWarming exceeds grimmest climate models

Since the 1997 international accord to fight global warming, climate change has worsened and accelerated — beyond some of the grimmest of warnings made back then.

As the world has talked for a dozen years about what to do next, new ship passages opened through the once frozen summer sea ice of the Arctic. In Greenland and Antarctica, ice sheets have lost trillions of tons of ice. Mountain glaciers in Europe, South America, Asia and Africa are shrinking faster than before.

And it's not just the frozen parts of the world that have felt the heat in the dozen years leading up to next month's climate summit in Copenhagen:

_ The world's oceans have risen by about an inch and a half.

Story continues below...

_Droughts and wildfires have turned more severe worldwide, from the U.S. West to Australia to the Sahel desert of North Africa.

_Species now in trouble because of changing climate include, not just the lumbering polar bear which has become a symbol of global warming, but also fragile butterflies, colorful frogs and entire stands of North American pine forests.

_Temperatures over the past 12 years are 0.4 of a degree warmer than the dozen years leading up to 1997.

artarcticice globalwarmingclimate Oceans rising faster than expected as climate change exceeds grimmest models Even the gloomiest climate models back in the 1990s didn't forecast results quite this bad so fast.

"The latest science is telling us we are in more trouble than we thought," Janos Pasztor, climate adviser to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

And here's why: Since an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas pollution was signed in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, the level of carbon dioxide in the air has increased 6.5 percent. Officials from across the world will convene in Copenhagen next month to seek a follow-up pact, one that President Barack Obama says "has immediate operational effect ... an important step forward in the effort to rally the world around a solution."

The last effort didn't quite get the anticipated results.

From 1997 to 2008, world carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have increased 31 percent; U.S. emissions of this greenhouse gas rose 3.7 percent. Emissions from China, now the biggest producer of this pollution, have more than doubled in that time period. When the U.S. Senate balked at the accord and President George W. Bush withdrew from it, that meant that the top three carbon polluters — the U.S., China and India — were not part of the pact's emission reductions. Developing countries were not covered by the Kyoto Protocol and that is a major issue in Copenhagen.

And the effects of greenhouse gases are more powerful and happening sooner than predicted, scientists said.

"Back in 1997, the impacts (of climate change) were underestimated; the rate of change has been faster," said Virginia Burkett, chief scientist for global change research at the U.S. Geological Survey.

That last part alarms former Vice President Al Gore, who helped broker a last-minute deal in Kyoto.

"By far the most serious differences that we've had is an acceleration of the crisis itself," Gore said in an interview this month with The Associated Press.

In 1997, global warming was an issue for climate scientists, environmentalists and policy wonks. Now biologists, lawyers, economists, engineers, insurance analysts, risk managers, disaster professionals, commodity traders, nutritionists, ethicists and even psychologists are working on global warming.

"We've come from a time in 1997 where this was some abstract problem working its way around scientific circles to now when the problem is in everyone's face," said Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate scientist.

The changes in the last 12 years that have the scientists most alarmed are happening in the Arctic with melting summer sea ice and around the world with the loss of key land-based ice masses. It's all happening far faster than predicted.

Back in 1997 "nobody in their wildest expectations," would have forecast the dramatic sudden loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic that started about five years ago, Weaver said. From 1993 to 1997, sea ice would shrink on average in the summer to about 2.7 million square miles. The average for the last five years is less than 2 million square miles. What's been lost is the size of Alaska.

Antarctica had a slight increase in sea ice, mostly because of the cooling effect of the ozone hole, according to the British Antarctic Survey. At the same time, large chunks of ice shelves — adding up to the size of Delaware — came off the Antarctic peninsula.

While melting Arctic ocean ice doesn't raise sea levels, the melting of giant land-based ice sheets and glaciers that drain into the seas do. Those are shrinking dramatically at both poles.

Measurements show that since 2000, Greenland has lost more than 1.5 trillion tons of ice, while Antarctica has lost about 1 trillion tons since 2002, according to two scientific studies published this fall. In multiple reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, scientists didn't anticipate ice sheet loss in Antarctica, Weaver said. And the rate of those losses is accelerating, so that Greenland's ice sheets are melting twice as fast now as they were just seven years ago, increasing sea level rise.

Worldwide glaciers are shrinking three times faster than in the 1970s and the average glacier has lost 25 feet of ice since 1997, said Michael Zemp, a researcher at World Glacier Monitoring Service at the University of Zurich.

"Glaciers are a good climate indicator," Zemp said. "What we see is an accelerated loss of ice."

Also, permafrost — the frozen northern ground that oil pipelines are built upon and which traps the potent greenhouse gas methane — is thawing at an alarming rate, Burkett said.

Another new post-1997 impact of global warming has scientists very concerned. The oceans are getting more acidic because more of the carbon dioxide in the air is being absorbed into the water. That causes acidification, an issue that didn't even merit a name until the past few years.

More acidic water harms coral, oysters and plankton and ultimately threatens the ocean food chain, biologists say.

In 1997, "there was no interest in plants and animals" and how they are hampered by climate change, said Stanford University biologist Terry Root. Now scientists are talking about which species can be saved from extinction and which are goners. The polar bear became the first species put on the federal list of threatened species and the small rabbit-like American pika may be joining it.

More than 37 million acres of Canadian and U.S. pine forests have been damaged by beetles that don't die in warmer winters. And in the U.S. West, the average number of acres burned per fire has more than doubled.

The Colorado River reservoirs, major water suppliers for the U.S. West, were nearly full in 1999, but by 2007 half the water was gone after the region endured the worst multiyear drought in 100 years of record-keeping.

Insurance losses and blackouts have soared and experts say global warming is partly to blame. The number of major U.S. weather-related blackouts from 2004-2008 were more than seven times higher than from 1993-1997, said Evan Mills, a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.

"The message on the science is that we know a lot more than we did in 1997 and it's all negative," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "Things are much worse than the models predicted."

Share this article:
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Story comments are below...

  • scarolinensis
    Maybe the problem is that reality is not expressed in simple enough terms. So let me give it a try. Our planet is a closed system. What goes on here, stays here. The only thing that comes and goes is radiation. If you would like to see how brutally a closed system operates when it is pushed to its limit seal the top of a simple aquarium and set the air pump to draw its air from within. The system doesn't give a damn for the fish. It will do just fine. It is probably safe to assume that throughout the universe all inteligent life forms face the same circumstance. Initially, their populations are so relatively low that they are able to treat their planets as open systems, but as they fluorish and grow their impact ultimately becomes so great that they have to face reality and manage the system themselves. Unfortunately, evolution didn't prepare them for that. The forces that drove them to the limit are too ingrained in their nature. Perhaps all life forms are doomed to wallow in their filth, never achieving their potential. Perhaps there really is no life worth contacting out there.
  • Savantster
    .
    "The forces that drove them to the limit are too ingrained in their nature. "

    not their nature, their learned behaviors. their lack of ability to evolve their world view at a pace that keeps up with technology. I doubt all intelligent life in the Universe has the same failings humans do, all you need is about 10 more IQ points per person on average, and the world becomes a MUCH different place.
    .
  • James Tobin
    Now can you explain how frogs in the Amazon can change their sex? No. Funny that. The computer models working on parameters based in 0s and 1s also can not.

    Is your contention really that our immensely complex atmosphere can be simplified by a comparison to a household plastic or glass aquarium?

    If so, please explain:

    where all the Co2 went from the Jurassic period?
    where did the Co2 gasses go after millions of years of volcanic eruption?
    if it is trapped why do we also have declines in Co2. Even Gore is honest enough to show Co2 declines.

    Just keeps rising does it. Sitting up there somewhere in fairy land.

    Simple answer yes, but politely absurd.
  • thx1138a
    .
    RAPID GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE MISNAMED "GLOBAL WARMING"

    -- Unfortunate Misnomer Combines With Small Brain Matter To Confuse Faux Noise Viewers --

    -- Ice Core Evidence Shows Highest Co2 Levels In 650K Years Since Industrial Revolution --

    -- Deniers Confuse Rising Seas, Polar Melting, and Chaotic Weather With Al Gore's Jet --
    .
  • James Tobin
    What 'deniers' as you call them confuse, is why Gore talks of 20ft sea level rise and a year later buys a $4m Condo at Fisherman's Pier.

    He is no friend of the left.
  • MemphisBill
    Okay deniers, give us your specific quantitative predictions for what the climate will do and then we can compare them with what the climate scientists say and see who is closest. Fair?
  • James Tobin
    You cannot predict it. That is the point. That is also why the earth is cooling this century despite IPCC predictions.

    Computers and the models produced work on 0s and 1s (parameters). The climate is immensely more difficult to model. In fact it is practically pointless. Unless you want to base your future policy on garbage.

    This talk about controlling the climate to 2 degrees is equally absurd. Obama may now have a noble prize, but that does not invite him to play God.

    What you can do is observe and measure something Michael Mann has trouble doing ethically. Hence, "hide the decline" "delete the raw data" etc. AKA Climategate.
  • MemphisBill
    Well if you can't predict it that is testable too. That would mean that there would be zero correlation between the model's predictions and what happens. It will be interesting to see what happens, like in the Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times", but interesting none the less.
  • CoyoteMan
    In the 21st. Century the climate deterioration will increase exponentially.
    All the oil company scientists told management the real bad stuff won't happen until 2050.
    I predicted 2015. I am standing by my prediction.
    Hope you all know how to swim really good!
    Remember the movie Waterworld? Get ready!
  • Savantster
    .
    Most of the early predictions were 2100.. Some of the bad stuff got bumped to 2050.. and like you, I've been telling people that those estimates were way off as well, and we're past the tipping point already.. We don't have time to "clean it up" now.. all we can do is fast track the cleanup and brace for impact.

    Calling for "cuts" to be in place by 2040 or 2050 was a bad thing to do. Of course, not listening to Carter in the 70s was really stupid, too. Other countries that started fixing their problems during that energy crunch are already green and getting greener by the day. We've missed DECADES of progress and opportunity to rebuild our entire infrastructure.. all because it was "cheaper to ignore it" at the time. .... nothing is free, and the bill is coming due.
  • texasaggie
    Let me second that. And also, thank you very much Ronald Reagan. You will go down in whatever history is left as one of the "heroes" (along with Cheney and Bush) responsible for the destruction of the USA.
  • James Tobin
    Carter was President when the consensus was for global cooling - a new ice age. If we had listened then we would be trying to warm the planet.

    Of humans have no or very limited effect, so both trying to cool or trying to heat like it is an air conditioner control are equally absurd.
  • MemphisBill
    There was never a scientific consensus for global cooling. There was an article in Time magazine. Time magazine is not a peer reviewed scientific journal.
  • jimbeaux
    And we will (if not already) reach "Peak Oil" soon which will drive oil prices through the roof.

    We're basically like drug addicts - we're doing something that is bad for us while our "pushers" are raising the price on our "habit".
  • kiboshki
    .
    Exactly. American exceptionalism and the twisted entitlement complex shared by those on the right is destroying the world, if it hasn't destroyed it already.

    It disgusts me thoroughly when someone refuses to conserve out of spite. The attitude is "Well, I can afford to fill up my SUV, so why should I? I bought it fair and square. It's my right!"

    Conservatives today have nothing to do with conserving. Little regard for consequences, and zero acknowledgment that money has little connection to reality. It's all about "me" and "now" in their tiny little lizard brains.
    .
  • smallbear
    And to think they tried to pass themselves off as the party of responsibility. HA!
  • Savantster
    .
    political "conservative" is not the same as "conserve", it is "proceed with guarded actions", or a slow way to move forward (with outright stagnation on various issues.. if it's not broke, don't fix it mentality). where as "progressive" means to progress, change, not fearing the new. It requires a mindset of accepting change to allow for going green. It won't kill you, but the party of "no" and stagnation can't get their heads around that.

    And re: filling up the SUV.. part of the problem is most people just don't realize that filling it up costs actual lives someplace else on the planet. People are so disconnected from the larger system that they don't see it so they pretend it doesn't exist. When you tell them about it, they find some other rationale.. like my co-worker did.. saying it's better she not "spend more to live" than to stop blowing up children. Her sense of entitlement to a very cushy life is stronger than her sense of decency and compassion.. which makes it all the more insulting for the right-wing to call them selves "compassionate conservatives".. I think they mean "pampered conservatives", to be honest.
    .
  • kiboshki
    .
    Sometimes, it seems he Party of NO is averse to any ideal of conservation simply because doing so would be an acknowledgment that *gasp* maybe Jimmy Carter was right! It's this notion that avoiding waste is somehow unpatriotic, or emasculating, or something, that completely befuddles and frustrates me.

    As you said, a lot of it stems from the fact that folks don't understand the real (ie, non-economic) costs of their wasteful habits. Much of my family is slaved to this mindset. When I point out the costs, the response I get is one more of ignorance, and an honest belief that somehow the dollars truly compensate for the blood.

    To me that's the fundamental problem. Policy is ALWAYS tied to money first and foremost, as if the money is the single determining factor. Other considerations-- human rights, life and health, dignity, equality-- are secondary to this way of thinking, if they enter the equation at all.

    This mindset underlies everything. Ergo, we are screwed. ;)
    .
  • James Tobin
    The party of No, could perhaps be for the conservation of the planet's wealth? Do you think that maybe world poverty is slightly bigger problem than a temporary outage of your broadband connection?
  • James Tobin
    Not really. What costs lives is turning agricultural land into bio fuel farms. That policy alone has resulted in a doubling of world food prices. So next time you pop down to McDonalds for your next $1 cheeseburger, think about the poor guy in Haiti who now cannot even afford a mud pie (literally).

    That is the crime. While we devote time to this senseless crusade against global warming, people are dying elsewhere from real problems. To take part in this global warming scam kills people. You are simply misguided to think otherwise.

    Of course, the massive food riots do not get much of mention in the mainstream media, but you can find small mentions here and there.

    The problem with the SUV is that people must conserve fossil fuels, I agree - but totally different issue I am afraid.
blog comments powered by Disqus