Andrew Glikson

It is a good question whether the Australian government, having effectively abandoned any meaningful attempt at the arrest of accelerating climate change, would have changed its White Paper in view of rising melt rates of Arctic Sea ice, which acts as the Earth's thermostat, and which has already decreased from 8 to 4 million km2 and is projected to vanish within the next 5 years or so news.bbc

Mean temperatures over the Arctic Sea, increased by about 3C and locally by 5C over the last 4 years, compared to the earlier long-term mean, heralds a new climate pattern in the northern hemisphere, including advanced melt of Greenland ice sheet over the next few decades, raising sea levels by several metres.

According to Julienne Stroeve (US National Snow and Ice Data Center) report to the American Geophysical Union, the process affects the temperature gradient between the Arctic and the equator and precipitation patterns. Oceanic currents and atmospheric circulation extend the effects to the Southern Hemisphere, where the western Antarctica Wilkins ice shelf has undergone mid-winter breakdown.

Not that this will cut too much ice with GovernmentS, where not everyone accepts the reality of human-triggered global temperature and sea level rise, currently at 0.35 cm/year, near-double late 20th century rates

A diabolical combination of factors is retarding efforts at controlling escalation of CO2 rise, currently at 2.2 ppm/year, from raising atmospheric energy levels above the 1.6 Watt/m2 already triggered by emission of 305 billion tons of Carbon and by land clearing.

First, despite overwhelming scientific evidence, the counterintuitive nature of global warming and consequent denial relegate dangerous climate change, in the eyes of most, to the realm of science fiction.

It is counterintutive, yet proven, that a rise of atmospheric CO2 by about 100 ppm raises mean global temeprature by at least 1 degrees Celsius, plus another 1 to 2 degrees C due to carbon cycle and ice melt feedbacks, pushing the atmosphere to conditions of 3 million years ago (mid-Pliocene) when sea levels rose by 25 metres. It is equally counterintutive, yet demonstrated, that a rise of atmospheric CO2 by several hundred ppm has resulted in a mass extinction about 55 million years ago.

Second, the powerful effect of vested interests, the fossil fuel companies, exert decisive influence on governments of all political shades, whether Howard's conservatives or the one described by Paul Kelly as the "green Howard", stating "Rudd's emission policy is a work of political genius that would make John Howard proud" (The Australian, 17.12.08).

In succeeding to achieve an almost perfect balance between political, social and economic forces, Rudd ovelooks the most decisive factor, namely, the increasingly dangerous atmospheric processes can hardly be expected to play ball with the government's policies (wouldn't it be nice if they did?).

By most accounts the government is no longer listening to climate science, as communicated by leading international scientists and science organizations.

But if the first duty of governments is to protect the people, including the young and future generations, that they don't get it, or have sold out to vested interests, will not be an excuse when it is too late to attempt to control the worst consequences of their inaction.

Not to decide is to decide.

-###-

(Dr) Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleoclimate scientist
Australian National University

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The People's Voice.

•••••

Other points of view:

Videos:

http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTqBrML4nsc

Articles:

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2008/12/07/theory-says-climate-change-depends-on-so

The Critical Thinker: Michael Crichton On The Parallels Between Environmentalism and Organized Religion. You Tube: Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion. + Michael Crichton on Global Warming, Part 1 of 3.

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." ~Michael Crichton

•••••