[Mb-civic] Warm, Warmer, Warmest By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

[Michael Butler]

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

March 5, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Warm, Warmer, Warmest
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

One of the hottest environmental battles has been over oil drilling in the
coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but the sad reality is
that much of the Arctic plain will probably be lost anyway in this century
to rising sea levels.

That should be our paramount struggle: to stop global warming. It threatens
not only the Arctic plain, but also low-lying areas around the world with
100 million inhabitants. And it could be accelerating because of the three
scariest words in climate science: positive feedback loops.

Bear with me now: a positive feedback loop occurs when a small change leads
to an even larger change of the same type. For example, a modest amount of
warming melts ice in northern climates. But the bare ground absorbs three
times as much heat as ground covered by snow or ice, so the change amplifies
the original warming. Even more ice melts, more heat is absorbed, and the
spiral grows.

That feedback loop is well understood and part of climate models, but others
aren't.

For example, perhaps the biggest single source of uncertainty about whether
Lower Manhattan will be underwater in 2100 has to do with the glaciers of
Greenland. If Greenland's ice sheet melted completely, that alone ‹ over
centuries ‹ would raise the oceans by 23 feet. And those glaciers are
dumping much more water into the oceans than they did a decade ago,
according to two satellite surveys just published, but the studies disagree
on the amounts.

Positive feedback seems to be at work. As a glacier melts a little, the
water trickles down to the rock and lubricates the glacier's slide toward
the sea. So, because of this and other effects, some of Greenland's glaciers
are now, in glacial terms, rocketing toward the sea at 7.5 miles a year.

Here's another positive loop. The Arctic permafrost may hold 14 percent of
the world's carbon, but as it melts, some of its carbon dioxide and methane
are released, adding to the amount of greenhouse gases. So more permafrost
melts.

Likewise, millions of years ago, warming oceans with vast amounts of methane
in their depths had great episodes of methane belching, which added to the
greenhouse effect then. I don't expect the oceans to burp in the same
massive way tomorrow, but if they did, no one would know how to fit those
unmannerly oceans into a climate model.

Part of the challenge in modeling climate is that we're already off the
charts with greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide and methane.
"We've driven them out of the range that has existed for the last one
million years," noted James Hansen, NASA's top climate expert. "And the
climate has not fully responded to changes that have already occurred."

In fairness, there are also negative feedback loops, which could dampen
change. For example, warmer temperatures could mean more snow over
Antarctica, implying an initial buildup of the Antarctic ice sheet. The
added ice could slow global warming and rising sea levels. But a new study
just published in Science Express says that the Antarctic ice sheet is
already thinning significantly ‹ raising more alarms and casting doubt on
that negative feedback.

In any case, it's clear that negative feedback loops in climatology are much
less common than positive loops, which amplify change and leave our climate
both unstable and vulnerable to human folly.

Still with me?

Look, I know that climate science can be ‹ here's a shock ‹ boring! But it's
better for us to slog through it now than for coming generations to slog
through the rising waters of, say, Manhattan. It may be more exciting to
thump the table about Iraq or torture ‹ or even the preservation of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ‹ and those are all hugely important. But
global warming may ultimately be the greatest test we face as stewards of
our planet. And so far we're failing catastrophically.

"Historians of science will be brutal on us," said Jerry Mahlman, a climate
expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "We are right now in
a state of deep denial about how severe the problem is. Political people are
saying, 'Well, it's not on my watch.' They're ducking for cover, because
who's going to tell the American people?"

We know what to do: energy conservation, gas taxes and carbon taxes, more
renewable energy sources like wind and solar power, and new (and safe)
nuclear power plants. But our political system is paralyzed in the face of
what may be the single biggest challenge to our planet.

"Are we an intelligent species or not?" Dr. Mahlman asked. "Right now, the
evidence is against it."

    * Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
    * Home
    * Privacy Policy
    * Search
    * Corrections
    * XML
    * Help
    * Contact Us
    * Work for Us
    * Site Map
    * Back to Top