According to a
report issued Monday (don't expect to read this in the US or hear it on TV news), half of Europe's plant life is at risk from global warming during the lifetimes of today's children. The report was published in the US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
And in part one, the author notes that some models "predict that the perennial sea-ice cover in the Arctic will disappear entirely by the year 2080." Thus, in the summer, there would be no ice in the Arctic Ocean. Scientist John Weatherly:
However, US businesses are reportedly doing an about face on the issue, in part due to "[c]ampaigns by religious institutional investors." Earlier this month, GE announced "energy-efficient products and renewable energy technology" and Ford has agreed to issue a similiar report.
This is the backdrop for the three-part series (with an online-only introduction) by Elizabeth Kolbert; the narrative begins in the summer of 2004. It is about 60 pages (printed from the New Yorker's "print" view - it's much easier to read this much material offline than online).
Kolbert begins in Alaska and explores issues relating to
In the fall of 2004, at a conference in Reykjavík, Robert Corell, an American oceanographer and a former assistant director at the National Science Foundation, summed the scientific findings like this:
Globally the most visible political effort to reduce greenhouse gases is the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emmisions by
New Yorker Series: Introduction Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
The Alps are especially at risk, as it hosts many "niche" species that over millennia have adapted to thin soil and cold and may be unable to find a home elsewhere.But isn't the "science" on global warming "mixed"? That's what I thought before I embarked on a meticulously crafted series in the New Yorker. It explores the research, theory and possible outcomes of increased greenhouse-gas concentrations on climate and life as we know it. (hat tip)
And in part one, the author notes that some models "predict that the perennial sea-ice cover in the Arctic will disappear entirely by the year 2080." Thus, in the summer, there would be no ice in the Arctic Ocean. Scientist John Weatherly:
That’s not in our lifetime. But it is in the lifetime of our kids.So what's being done about it? Domestically, President Bush has opposed proposals to restrict carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, regardless of which aisle or chamber suggests it's time to find out more: Sen. McCain-R and Rep. Gilchrest-R each have sponsored bi-partisan bills (SB-342 and HB-759) ; both are mired in Republican-controlled Committees.
However, US businesses are reportedly doing an about face on the issue, in part due to "[c]ampaigns by religious institutional investors." Earlier this month, GE announced "energy-efficient products and renewable energy technology" and Ford has agreed to issue a similiar report.
This is the backdrop for the three-part series (with an online-only introduction) by Elizabeth Kolbert; the narrative begins in the summer of 2004. It is about 60 pages (printed from the New Yorker's "print" view - it's much easier to read this much material offline than online).
Kolbert begins in Alaska and explores issues relating to
- permafrost temperatures ("unambiguous sign that the climate is heating up")
- summer forest fires (in 2004, a record 6.3 million acres burned -- an area roughly the size of New Hampshire)
- weather conditions for Inupiat's near the Bering Land Bridge (sea-ice capable of supporting snowmobiles for hunting has shrunk from 20 miles out to less than half that)
- perennial Arctic sea ice (1979 - 1.7 billion acres, roughly the size of the continental US; today it has shrunk by the combined acreage of New York, Georgia, and Texas)
- Antarctic ice cores (today's carbon-dioxide levels are significantly higher than at any time in the last 420,000 years)
In the fall of 2004, at a conference in Reykjavík, Robert Corell, an American oceanographer and a former assistant director at the National Science Foundation, summed the scientific findings like this:
"The Arctic climate is warming rapidly now, with an emphasis on now.” Particularly alarming, Corell said, were the most recent data from Greenland, which showed the ice sheet melting much faster “than we thought possible even a decade ago.”Kolbert addresses the fact that "[g]lobal warming is routinely described as a matter of scientific debate—a theory whose validity has yet to be demonstrated."
The symposium’s opening session lasted for more than nine hours. During that time, many speakers stressed the uncertainties that remain about global warming and its effects—on the thermohaline circulation, on the distribution of vegetation, on the survival of cold-loving species, on the frequency of forest fires. But this sort of questioning, which is so basic to scientific discourse, never extended to the relationship between carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.Geologically speaking, this all might be a drop in the bucket of time. But man does not live in geologic time. The question posed by this research is not "will the earth survive" but "how will humans survive"?
The study’s executive summary stated, unequivocally, that human beings had become the “dominant factor” influencing the climate.
During an afternoon coffee break, I caught up with Corell. “Let’s say that there’s three hundred people in this room,” he told me. “I don’t think you’ll find five who would say that global warming is just a natural process.”
Globally the most visible political effort to reduce greenhouse gases is the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emmisions by
5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut)The US and Australia are the only industrialized nations to shun the agreement. The US is the largest producer of greenhouse gas on the planet.
New Yorker Series: Introduction Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Comments