Escalating ice loss in Antarctica

msnbc.com: "WASHINGTON - Climatic changes appear to be destabilizing vast ice sheets of western Antarctica that had previously seemed relatively protected from global warming, researchers reported yesterday, raising the prospect of faster sea-level rise than current estimates.

While the overall loss is a tiny fraction of the miles-deep ice that covers much of Antarctica, scientists said the new finding is important because the continent holds about 90 percent of Earth's ice, and until now, large-scale ice loss there had been limited to the peninsula that juts out toward the tip of South America. In addition, researchers found that the rate of ice loss in the affected areas has accelerated over the past 10 years -- as it has on most glaciers and ice sheets around the world."

Plastic trash vortex menaces Pacific sealife-study

Reuters.co.uk: "WASHINGTON, Nov 5 (Reuters) - Old toothbrushes, beach toys and used condoms are part of a vast vortex of plastic trash in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, threatening sea creatures that get tangled in it, eat it or ride on it, a new report says.

Because plastic doesn't break down the way organic material does, ocean currents and tides have carried it thousands of miles (kms) to an area between Hawaii and the U.S. West Coast, according to the study by the international environmental group Greenpeace.

This swirling vortex, which can grow to be about the size of Texas, is not far from the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, designated as a protected U.S. national monument in June by President George W. Bush.

The Greenpeace report, "Plastic Debris in the World's Oceans" said at least 267 species -- including seabirds, turtles, seals, sea lions, whales and fish -- are known to have suffered from entanglement or ingestion of marine debris."

No warming since 1998? Get real, deniers!

Climate Progress: "Let’s look at the data, from NASA, presented last month:

Through the first 11 months, 2007 is the second warmest year in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean has entered the cool phase of its natural El Ni�o — La Ni�a cycle.



Figure (a) Annual surface temperature anomaly relative to 1951-1980 mean, based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements of sea surface temperature; the 2007 point is the 11-month anomaly. [Green error bar is estimated 2σ uncertainty….]"

“The true economic impact of climate change is fraught with hidden costs...”

CIER - Center for Integrative Environmental Research:

The direct costs of not taking on the challenges posed by climate change are often neglected – and typically not calculated. The indirect effects are considered even less frequently, yet can be substantial. The effects will be felt by the entire nation:

• All sectors of the economy will be affected.

• Essential infrastructures for reliable services and high standards of living and health (such as water supply and water treatment) will be impacted.

• Ecosystems, on which quality of life relies (such as forests, rivers and lakes), will suffer.

This study presents an overview of climate impacts on various economic sectors in the US, organized by region.

Five Key Lessons

1. Economic impacts of climate change will occur throughout the country.
2. Economic impacts will be unevenly distributed across regions and within the economy and society.
3. Negative climate impacts will outweigh benefits for most sectors that provide essential goods and services to society.
4. Climate change impacts will place immense strains on public sector budgets.
5. Secondary effects of climate impacts can include higher prices, reduced income and job losses

Climate News Roundup

Climate Progress

Climate Change’s $75 Billion Bill - Forbes.com. “Total economic losses from natural catastrophes in 2007 rose to $75 billion from $50 billion the year before as extreme weather conditions driven by climate change wreaked havoc across the world, according to Munich Re (other-otc: MURGF - news - people ), the world’s second-largest reinsurer on Thursday…. “The trend in respect of weather extremes shows that climate change is already taking effect and that more such extremes are to be expected in the future,” said Torsten Jeworrek, a member of the reinsurer’s board.”

EPA Is to Reveal Greenhouse Gas Papers - Washington Post. The EPA “signaled it is prepared to comply with a congressional request for all documents — including communications with the White House– concerning its decision to block California from imposing limits on greenhouse gases.” Should make for interesting reading.

Report Finds Deforestation Offers Very Little Money Compared To Potential Financial Benefits - ScienceDaily. “What we discovered is that returns for deforestation are generally so paltry that if farmers and other land users were rewarded for the carbon stored in their trees and forests, it is highly likely that a large amount of deforestation and carbon emissions would be prevented.”

Times Square New Year’s Eve ball goes green - MSNBC. “The star of the world-famous holiday extravaganza was revamped this year with 9,576 energy-efficient bulbs that use about the same amount of electricity as 10 toasters.” Who says enviros can’t have a ball?

Green Technology

A question for all of the GW deniers. Lets assume you are correct and GW is not real. What is the harm in going to wind and solar power and raising the CAFEE standards for our cars? To me is makes perfect sense to spend a little extra now to save five years from now. At current prices and energy rates you will start to see a return in investment in 5-7 years on most of the environmentally friendly technology. In other words you have two options

Option A: You give me $100, every year I give you back $40 After 5 years you will have made $100 in profits After 10 years you will have made $300 in profits
(40 x 5 = 200) (200-100=100)
(40 x 10 = 400) (400-100=300)

Option B: You give me $200, every year I give you back $60 After 5 years you will have made $100 in profits After 10 years you will have made $400 in profits
(60 x 5 = 300) (300-200=100)
(60 x 10 = 600) (600-200=400)

From a purely economic stand point it makes no sense to me to fight and argue against this new technology. In the long term it will be a good investment. And if we consider supply and demand as more people demand these products the price will be higher (this is the current situation) but as the free market starts to see this demand the supply will increase which will lower the price dramatically. Once that happens the return on investment will be lowered to 1-2 years and eventually to an immediate return. Germany is doing some great things with solar and wind power.

sfgate.com

"Germany's policy is a more mixed and balanced strategy than to look under the sands of the Arabian peninsula," Trittin said, referring to U.S. reliance on Persian Gulf oil. "This is more the European way. There are 6 billion people on this globe. You will not solve our need for energy with fossil fuels or nuclear plants. You will do it by substituting with renewables. "

But Germany's experience suggests that the profit motive is the key -- alternative energy sectors grow fastest when users are able to make money on the energy they generate.

Global Warming is over?

Open Mind: "Another way to get a better picture of actual trends is by taking averages, not over very brief 1-year periods, but over longer stretches of time. Here’s the actual global average temperature (from NASA GISS) averaged over each 5-year interval (the last average is incomplete, since we haven’t yet finished the 2005-2010 interval):



Now we see a much more steady progression. That’s because taking longer-term averages actually reduces the effect of the noise without affecting the trend. But there’s still noise! By taking averages over longer time spans we don’t eliminate the noise, we just make it smaller."