Putting aside the fantastical nature of the speed with which this happened, the base science is sound; that an increase in freshwater could slow or shutdown the thermohaline circulation, causing an unexpected and unhelpful ice age.

Now to be fair, the freshwater increase would necessitate the entire Greenland ice sheet to dissipate for this to happen, but given a timeframe of decades to centuries, this is not entirely out of the question. In addition, we know for a fact that a sudden increase in freshwater will have significant effects in the northern hemisphere, because Earth has already seen it happen.

The Younger Dryas was a brief period of cold climate approximately 12,800 to 11,500 years Before Present. Prior to the Younger Dryas, a period of massive deglaciation took place across North America, leaving behind freshwater lakes fed by glacial runoff. One of these freshwater lakes was Lake Agassiz, a lake that measured in at approximately the size of Iraq, covering much of Manitoba, western Ontario, northern Minnesota, eastern North Dakota, and Saskatchewan (see image below).

Climatologists believe that Lake Agassiz drained through the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence River into the Atlantic Ocean, at approximately 11000 BC, causing the strangling of the THC.

Scientists note that if such an event were to occur, there is nothing we could do to stop it; we will have gone too far already. However Ed Hawkins and Rowan Sutton of the University of Reading, UK, have used a climate model developed by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre to give us at least a warning.

The study “is the first to demonstrate that such rapid changes are potentially predictable,” Hawkins says. “It is a first step in designing a possible ‘early warning system’.”

Their climate simulation ran for 1100 virtual years, based on pre-industrial C02 data, and showed several natural fluctuations big enough to make the THC slow or speed up by about 15% within a decade. In the data though, a few locations within the North Atlantic Ocean showed signs of the oncoming change, giving a warming of as much as 10 years.

These indicators were a drop in the sea-surface temperature and salinity of water in the Nordic seas, as well as a drop in flow through the Denmark Strait.

“Ten years’ warning would not be enough to do anything about the change itself, but could aid adaptation planning on regional scales,” Hawkins says. As depicted in the movie, when the cessation of the THC happened, the planet was unable to cope, and millions died, while millions more streamed across their southern borders looking for warmer weather.

This simulation is not necessarily helpful in terms of a world in the grips of climate change, as it only looked at natural variations. “The markers for a slowdown due to global warming might be very different,” Hawkins says. And accortding to the latest IPCC report, if global warming continues as it has been, it is “very likely” that the current will slow this century.

Australia, South America, Africa, be prepared for an influx of residents sometime in the next few decades!

Source: New Scientist

Speaking in a telephone briefing last Friday, Jennifer Francis, an atmospheric scientist at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said that the Arctic and Antarctic are exhibiting opposite effects to the climate change affecting our planet.

It has been well documented that the North Pole is suffering from melting ice; however down south, in Antarctica, the climate change is powering winds that lower the temperature. “All the evidence points toward human-made effects playing a major role in the changes that we see at both poles and evidence that contradicts this is very hard to find,” said Francis.

To be published in the May 6^th edition of the journal Eos, Francis and her co-authors conducted an examination of many previous studies about polar climate, and concluded that it “further depletes the arsenal of those who insist that human-caused climate change is nothing to worry about.”

The Arctic

The paper rightfully combines man-made global warming with natural variation, to explain what is happening in the north. They describe the conditions as a “perfect Arctic storm,” referring to human-generated carbon dioxide emissions and natural climate variations.

“Natural climate variability and global warming were actually working together and they’ve sent the Arctic into a new state for the climate that has much less sea ice,” said James Overland, an oceanographer at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “There’s very little chance for the climate to return to the conditions of 20 years ago.”

Antarctica

Conversely, Antarctica is exhibiting very different characteristics; and researchers believe that is because of the ozone hole that hovers above.

Gareth Marshall, of the British Antarctic Survey, points to changes in air pressure combined with the depleted stratospheric levels of ozone as the culprits for an increase in westerly winds. These winds sweep in along the Southern Ocean, isolating much of Antarctica from the impact of global warming.

The notable exception to this however is the Antarctic Peninsula, which sits just above the latitudes at which the winds sweep in. We have already seen what happens to locations that are not protected by these westerly winds (ie, the breaking up of the Larson Ice Shelf).

Good News / Bad News

The late 90’s – especially here in Australia where we are one of the nations closest and most affected by the ozone hole – was predominated by the need to change our ways. We had to stop using less of the chemicals that bore the hole in the ozone layer. Experts believe that the ozone layer will be fully recovered by 2070, as a result of strict international agreements banning these chemicals.

Subsequently, Francis and her colleagues believe that the ozone’s recovery will open the way for Antarctica to be subject to the same effects that are eating away at its northern cousin. It is, in all its glory, the epitome of “good news/bad news.”

Image courtesy of Wikipedia, depicting the collapsing Larsen B Ice Shelf and a comparison to the U.S. state of Rhode Island.

Traditionally March marks the time of year when the Arctic ice is at its highest extent after the Northern Hemisphere’s winter comes to a close. For 40 years NASA satellites have tracked the ice coverage of both Arctic and Antarctic.

So with March half way gone, what is the Arctic looking like?

Not good, is definitely a summation that will be used often. While it hasn’t dipped between any previous low records, it is still covering substantially less than in previous decades.

Shown in the graphic below, we can see that there is another problem to be concerned about. Not only is the sea-ice not covering as much as it should be, but the age of the ice is substantially less than previously recorded.

The age of sea-ice is important because with more summers under its belt, the stronger it gets. Thicker and older ice is better able to stand up to increasing temperatures during summer. However the graphic plainly shows a dramatic drop in ice age, especially in the amount of ice aged 6 years and more.

What this means is that the predominantly red colored ice coverage is at a higher risk of melting, if temperatures increase enough. It isn’t as strong and reliable as the older ice.

The future is unclear for the Arctic, with a string of colder seasons needed before any stability can be brought back to the region.

Related Stories

Younger Sea Ice Bad for Planet

Arctic Ice in Battle for its Life

Live Science - Artic Ice Returns, Thin and Tentative 

Photo Courtesy of fruchtzwerg’s world via Flickr

Graphic Courtesy of NSIDC, S. Drobot, University of Colorado, Boulder

Scott Borgerson of the Council on Foreign Relations, a former U.S. Coast Guard lieutenant commander, has just gone on record as saying that we could be facing a new cold war.

The analogy is both apt and humorously fitting, but is it in any way true? Instead of the historic face-off between the world’s two superpowers, we could be looking at something far different. Instead of just America and Russia, Arctic powers include Canada, Denmark and Norway, in addition to the original two.

Already tensions are rising, in a way that is eerily familiar. Russia is sending submarines and science ships north to investigate how far their continental shelf extends. They’ve planted a flag on the seabed underneath the North Pole, and for the first time since the Cold War, they’ve sent strategic bomber flights over the Arctic.

And yet a US official, who went on record under anonymity, believes that “There’s no ice cold war.”

Borgerson said in a telephone interview recently that “…planting a flag on the sea bottom and renewing strategic bomber flights is provocative,” and added that “I don’t think we’re [the United States] scrambling. We’re sleepwalking … I think the Russians are scrambling and I think the Norwegians and Canadians and Danes are keenly aware.”

Everyone’s scrambling for the best view. Russia isn’t the only one conducting scientific research. All of the Arctic powers are looking at just how far their continental shelves reach. Russia seems to have stepped on toes, and while they aren’t necessarily in direct conflict with the US as of yet, Norway and Denmark definitely have some issues with what Russia is claiming as hers.

Coastal nations, like the 5 involved, are generally happy with the 200 nautical miles that extend from their coastline as sovereign territory. But recent research coming out of the University of New Hampshire and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration suggests that the US shelf might extend an extra 100 nautical miles further than previously thought.

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea is what gives the sovereign rights to coastal nations. And many believe that the US should sign the treaty soon. In addition, if a country can meet a set of conditions – scientific, etc – then their coastal boundaries can extend.

“Of course we need to be at the table as ocean law develops,” the U.S. official said. “It’s not like ocean law is going to stop developing if we’re not in there. It’s just going to develop without us.”

What saddens me the most is that you can get your bottom dollar that this does not bode well for the environment. Ask yourself what’s causing the melting of the Arctic, and then look at what they hope to extract. The answer to both questions, is fossil fuel.

Photo Courtesy of arcticroute.com via Flickr

This question has me absolutely stumped, and quite honestly, a little baffled.

"Is taking action better than not taking action?"

Apparently, to suggest taking action against not taking action is a statement worthy of "making waves." Peter Tsigaris, a statistician at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, Canada, has been making some of those waves in his native country with this suggestion.

Now granted, his claims are directly related to the economy, and not so much the health of his planet around him, but let's not dismiss it due to our failure in high school math. As much as we don't want to admit it, economics is what will ultimately shape the change for the better.

Tsigaris points to a report delivered in 2006 by England's Government Economic Service, which says that if people do not act to curb global warming, the impacts of climate change will drain at least 5 percent — and up to 20 percent — of the global gross domestic product each year. That is compared to an approximate one percent of the annual global GDP to act on it.

Yet still, some believe there is not enough information to act, and that there is still not enough evidence to prove that humans are behind the rise.

The first report, released by the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC), represent the data at the end of the melt season, or summer. According to the report, released yearly at this time, the 2007 levels of ice in the Arctic Ocean are lower than ever before.

Dr Mark Serreze, an Arctic specialist at the Boulder University of Colorado National Snow and Ice Data Center, says that "It's amazing. It's simply fallen off a cliff and we’re still losing ice."

The report was blunt in its appraisal of the current conditions, stating that "As of today (September 3), ice extent in 2007 was 1 million square kilometers (386,000 square miles) less than the same day in 2005." Sea ice normally stops melting and begins its regrowth sometime in September, and according to reports, that is still a few weeks away. "The bottom line," the report states, is that "2007 has already unseated the 2005 record, but we don't yet know by how much."

It is as a result of these figures that the estimate has arisen that by 2030 there will be no more summer ice if the current rate of drop-off continues.

In fact, the drop off is so total that the Northwest Passage, the space that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans together, is now almost completely open. It was only a hundred years ago that it would have taken over two years to find a safe passage through what was then thick and compact ice. Researchers also believe that the northeast passage (not yet capitalized due to its unpopularity apparently) could open later this year.

Facts: As climate change skepticism has developed into a full-blown industry, a number of myths have filtered out about historical patterns of warming and cooling: just mention the "Little Ice Age" or the "Medieval Warm Period" to your favorite skeptic, and let 'em go...

As a history buff, I always found today's myth fascinating. As Coby Beck at Grist notes, Viking leader Eric the Red gave Greenland its name not because it was lush and green, but because he wanted folks back home to think it was:

Greenland was called Greenland by Erik the Red (was he red?), who was in exile and wanted to attract people to a new colony. He thought you should give a land a good name so people would want to go there! It likely was a bit warmer when he landed for the first time than it was when the last settlers starved due to a number of factors -- climate change, or at least some bad weather, a major one.

But it was never lush, and their existence was always harsh and meager, especially due to the Viking's disdain for other peoples and ways of living. They attempted to live a European lifestyle in an arctic climate, side by side with Inuit who easily outlasted them. They starved surrounded by oceans and yet never ate fish! (Note: this was not a typical European behavior, and is a bit of a mystery to this day.)

It is estimated by scientists that nearly 25% of the world's undiscovered gas and oil reserves may be in the Arctic. With warming seas making the idea of a Northwest Passage for shipping lanes a reality, the enticement of setting up rigs and scooping resources is causing countries to get out and make claims. Canada, Russia, Denmark, and the United States are all shouting "Mine! Mine!". Oil aside, fishing companies are also eager to start tapping into the region, which could spell disaster for stocks in the region.