Climate change - in pictures 14 March 05

Exerpt from National Geographic Article on Kilimanjaro….

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0923_030923_kilimanjaroglaciers.html

Old Story…

When Thompson’s reports of glacial recession on Kilimanjaro first emerged in 2002, the story was quickly picked up and trumpeted as another example of humans destroying nature. It’s easy to see why: Ice fields in the tropics—Kilimanjaro lies about 220 miles (350 kilometers) south of the Equator—are particularly susceptible to climate change, and even the slightest temperature fluctuation can have devastating effects.

News Perspective flash

“There’s a tendency for people to take this temperature increase and draw quick conclusions, which is a mistake,” said Douglas R. Hardy, a climatologist at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, who monitored Kilimanjaro’s glaciers from mountaintop weather stations since 2000. “The real explanations are much more complex. Global warming plays a part, but a variety of factors are really involved.”

Real Causes?

According to Hardy, forest reduction in the areas surrounding Kilimanjaro, and not global warming, might be the strongest human influence on glacial recession. “Clearing for agriculture and forest fires—often caused by honey collectors trying to smoke bees out of their hives—have greatly reduced the surrounding forests,” he says. The loss of foliage causes less moisture to be pumped into the atmosphere, leading to reduced cloud cover and precipitation and increased solar radiation and glacial evaporation.

but there’s not much I can do about those local causes of glacier melt, while I can do something about the global warming factor (& all the reports I read made it clear global warming was a factor, even if only one among several).

Pictures are worth more than a thousand words in these photo examples.

The reduced albedo from the newly exposed darker ground creates a positive feedback loop which makes it all the worse which increases local warming which melts more ice.

Mark, based on a your previous post about melting glaciers, those earlier cited references pointed out that the heat influx required to melt glacier ice were found to be a few watts per square meter.

I know this world-wide melting is substantial evidence. Those scientists studying glacier mass, precipitation, melting, and evaporation will have sufficient data to calculate the heat required to make these glaciers retreat. I have no doubt about that since I could do it if I had the same data.

From my perspective, this is enough proof for the existence that GW/CC is indeed occurring. The process of melting large quantities of ice takes time only because of the tremendous heat required to do that. Since melting ice absorbs so much more energy than heating land or even water, then once the ice melts, the local area should expect a faster rise in temperature due to decreased albedo and no more ice to absorb further heat.

For the lay person, know that a glass of ice water maintains its cold temperature as long as there is ice. Once the ice melts, the glass of water warms fairly quickly.

This fact is based on the physics of changing the phase of water from solid to a liquid. It is called the latent heat of fusion.

For water it is 143.3 Btu per pound. And since water’s specific heat is 0.998 Btu per pound degree Fahrenheit then, it would take 143 times the heat energy to melt water at its freezing point than to raise the same quantity of water 1 degree Fahrenheit once it became a liquid.

For the metric people, that converts to 257 times the heat energy needed it melt water at its freezing point than to raise the same quantity of liquid water to 1 degree Celsius.

So, I hope this adds some clarity. I fully realize the complexity of the climate and sometimes some people suggest that the computer models are flawed in their ability to predict the future.

However, I like to stick to the basics when understanding the process. If the computer models predict an accelerated future temperature rise after more ice melts, then maybe my simple physics perspective has validity in comparison to both what the models predict and what I suggest in my post.

What this may suggest is that if the current warming seems slow at this time, then it will accelerate faster at a future time. Mark, I do not know. Is this what the models predict?

I hope my numbers and comments add further insight with respect to Mark’s posted photos into the significance of receding glaciers to this GW/CC debate. Melting ice should always cause of us concern.

All the debate about economics will not change the fundamental laws of physics. Whatever we do, we must work within the confines of climate physics since the earth does not care about our economics.

We best focus on the earth’s climate systems as the basis for figuring out what we should do rather than our perceived needs as a society as that basis.

The earth will adjust itself to equilibrium regardless of what we think we must have for ourselves as a species. I am sure Brendon Westacott would agree with me on this!

Best Regards, Dan

Global warming is affecting every mountain range on earth. As are a multitude of local factors too. But you maybe missed my earlier post about glacial retreat being a worldwide phenomenon – the latest from the World Glacier Monitoring Service leaves no room for doubt.

That’s not to say that Kilimanjaro doesn’t provide an interesting case study. A recent OECD report also contradicts Thompson’s view – not about the causes of glacial retreat per se, but about the consequences. Glacial disappearance is much less significant for water supplies than the loss of forest cover, it says. (Although the loss of ice, apart from the aesthetic issue, is undoubtedly the loss of a unique palaeoclimate record.)

I’m not sure whether you’re posting this as a way to somehow discount the influence of global warming or not. Assuming you’re not, it’s interesting that on the same day as this came out, so did a new report about glacial retreat in the Himalayas.

Mount Kilimanjaro has featured frequently in articles about GW over recent years, all usually giving an estimate of the years yet to elapse before it loses its icecap-15,20, 25…but it appears from this photo that the position has moved on faster than expected…which again seems to be a common thread to the overall story.

I posted some relevant info on Kilimanjaro and causes for retreating glacier (which your article did not dispute). Yes the glaciers are retreating as they have done in time periods past. The pictures of the mountain were nice. Probably the biggest impact for the area will be tourism and less people coming to climb near the ice fields (since they are dwindling).

The article you posted did differ with Thompson on what the glacial decline effects would be. But, I was simply posting that the glacier has been reteating for a long time (since 1850 according to your article) and is not something just recently occuring. Many think global warming is a recent event, but it has happened in the past in cycles. We may just be here on the edge of one of those earth cycles. And the causes of the retreat may be from GHG’s etc but may have other causes.

It’s just information that I came across and thought was interesting….

Yes the ice should have been retreating since 1850 because industrialization started even before then, and human impact via burning techniques for agriculture has been going on for thousands of years, and for hunting, even longer. I’m not sure why climate scientists considered the time before 1900 as not impacted by humans (except maybe the impact is quite small, compared to after 1900).

There have been periods of global warming prior to now, triggered by natural events, such volcanoes. That makes this period all the more troubling. Now we have added a new anthropogenic factor to the picture. So what if nature decidedd to act up, as it has in the past, and volcanoes start spewing out lots & lots of GHGs (as they apparently did in the end-Permian 251 million years ago)? It could happen. So that added to our human contributions could make the situation even worse. Only 95% of life died then. Maybe more would die in this possible extinction level event we may be heading for, or the same (they do say life is more resilient now).

All the more reason stop adding straws to the camel’s back.

That was great info about melting water v. after the melt. I wonder if they did consider it (you’d think they would have). I also wonder if they are inputing all the positive feedback loops. Perhaps some of them are unknown or unquantified or unquantifiable. Just because something is unquanifiable or unknown, and thus not included in calculations, doesn’t mean it isn’t having an impact. I read that abrupt changes are very difficult to predict.

As with physics not caring about economics, biology doesn’t care about it either. A person could have all the money in the world, but if the environment doesn’t support plant & animal life, that person dies.

Should spend all this money on lowering GHG’s or just use the money to buy supplies the (poorer) world needs?

Article Exerpt>

On Wednesday, the Kyoto Protocol on global climate change enters force, marking a milestone for environmentalism. But making climate change “a central moral test of our time” was wrong, writes Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist.

Lomborg points to existing climate models that predict that even universal acceptance of the Kyoto rules would postpone warming by a mere six years in 2100, while costing at least US$150 billion a year.

“If we have a moral obligation,” Lomborg writes, “it is to spend each dollar doing the most good that we possibly can.”

UN estimates suggest that US$75 billion, or half the cost of Kyoto, could buy clean water, sanitation, basic health care, and education for every person in the world. – YaleGlobal

link http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5280

The key point I see is that adherance to Kyoto by all countries (universal acceptance) will only postpone the inevitable by 6 years! If that is true then why waste that money? How much change can we actually change things (environmentally)?

I keep hearing earth cycles as an explanation that human beings are not responsible for the current warming trend. I think it is a false assumption for the following reasons

First, I have never heard anyone give a solid explanation of what natural causes would be contributing to the current warming that would negate human involvement. I would love to see any analysis or data that explains this on a world-wide basis. Every time I hear this, it is just speculation without anything to back it up. Regional variation is not sufficient since this is world wide. Give me real evidence.

Second, the main mechanism of orbital forcing responsible for the start of glacial periods and glacial retreats are currently not geared to warming but cooling instead. We are in an interglacial period and this long-range cooling trend will take many thousands of years and is pretty small but still we should be going in the cooling direction based on that status.

Third, the mechanisms for the greenhouse effect and our increase of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels are well documented and offer an explanation.

Finally, what a strange coincidence in that our current warming coincides quite nicely with the advent of the industrial revolution. For those who want to be in denial, it seems presumptuous to trash what so many scientists have documented on pure speculation that it could be something else and then offer no proof of that!

For me, that may be wishful thinking at best. And with that said, I hope you are right and I am wrong.

Dan

Yes, I agree that this may be the real problem on how much we can actually change.

Still, for me, this is a problem that we must solve and cannot avoid.

Personally, I think we can do better than we are currently doing and we should continue to srive for better solutions.

There is too much more at stake than to simply give up because of what Lomborg says.

With peak oil coming, we will have to change anyway and the quicker we start, the better our future may be.

Kyoto seems for me like an idea to just get the ball rolling.

Maybe Kyoto can be improved and there may be additional measures which can be taken.

If you can spoof a spoof, that is. I’m a great fan of the Onion. When anyone talks about natural cycles it makes me chuckle. How about this for an Onionish headline:

Area Motorist Gains Sudden Geological Perspective

Climate change is just a “natural cycle” that has been going on for millions of years, according to area resident Brad Beedlebrok on Thursday. Leaning out of the window of his Humvee SUV whilst brandishing a copy of Michael Crichton’s latest novel, Mr Beedlebrok declared that “the earth’s climate has always been changing” and bemoaned the lack of geological knowledge amongst extremist commie enviros.

Economics is important but is currently flawed because it is not taking into account either physics or biology enough. Your book Natural Capitalism makes a good case on where the economics should be going.

For me, the cost of oil is not as important as the cost of replacing it. The time necessary to change from an oil-dependent economy seems to be much higher than most economists may understand and critical shortages will result in the end with rapid increases in price.

Subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and even our food industry may have increased our dependence on carbon fuels and the current market would have made energy more costly and that would have increased the use alternative energy, promoted higher energy efficiency, and made people conserve their energy resources more.

For me, our economics and government policies enable us to operative on borrowed energy, borrowed climate, borrowed money, and borrowed time.

At some point I wonder how long we can continue to borrow against our future, and I wonder about the sanity of those who think that an unsustainable path will secure theirs.

Take Care,

Dan

might just be that straw taken off the camel’s back that saves the entire world from extinction. We’ll never really know, but we just have to do our best. As Dan Kellog & the Apollo 13 commander says, “Failure is not an option.”

Since you save more than $50 (v. using an incandescent) over the lifetime of a compact fluorescent bulb, & the bulb pays for itself in less than a year, I’d say that’s a pretty good return rate (better than bank interest or stocks). So, if you could just do that one thing, and report back to us that it wasn’t too much of a problem, that might encourage and fortify others. I’m serious. It would give me an inkling of hope that someone out there cares, that I’m not all alone in this. I get depressed when people don’t even try to do one or two small things.

Was realy moved tonight (22 March 05)watching this show. For ages have been feeling realy angry about the seemingly programmed destiny we have made for ourselves and the inability of individuals, business and governments to put our planet before personal interest. You would think sustainable development equates to personal interest! I have ended up at this site and do feel a bit better that I am not the only person on the planet to feel this way. I am hoping that someone out there can recomend any groups within Australia, prefferably WA which I can look at that engage in efforts to make this opinion heard. So anyone listening out there that can help me to contribute to the well being of this planet please let me know. ta

Hi Steve,

you’re in WA, this guy is in NSW, but if you have a read of the kind of things he has to say in this link, you’ll get the idea that he cares rather a lot about trying to reverse the damage that is being done His name is Gerry Gillespie (don’t be put off by the guitar playing!) His e-mail address is at the bottom of the link. He will probably be able to put you in touch with groups in your area that are active in promoting sustainable development. He is heavily involved in an organisation called Zero Waste International. There are a multitude of links between our attitude to waste, resources, sustainability and the damage we are doing to the planet’s ecosystems.

http://www.beyondfederation.org.au/Gerry_Gillespie_paper_delivered_27_Dec_2001.html

Get angry: ask questions. When you get answers that start making sense to you, act on them. You are not alone. If you have problems making contact, get back to me.

All the best

Colin

Hi colin

thank you for the info. I notice that you seem to have been motivated by the same programme. (I think horizon was replayed on ‘4 conrners’ in AUst. Looking forward to finding out more from the link that you provided. regards steve

I would like to say Thanks for a superbly written account in High Tide. I have passed it on to my Step son in much the same way the global warming problem will be handed on to him also. Something I have noticed is that it always seems to come down to ‘We would do this but it will cost too much.’ For instance I read in my local paper an article about it being a ridiculous idea to build more nuclear power stations due to their inefficiency and their cost to build, as well as the legacy of the waste. However, in terms of cost to the planet’s atmosphere, it would appear that nuclear power isn’t such a bad idea after all, seeing as it does not generate CO2 during electricity production. It sounds like we should build nuclear as a stopgap until Hydrogen generators can be effectively produced. Unfortunately the oil companies probably won’t think much of that.

I agree! I think it was in Jurassic Park: The Lost World (the book!) where someone says something like “Oh No. The Earth is not in any danger whatsoever. Mankind may endanger himself to extinction but the Earth will carry on floating about quite happily plus whatever wildlife manages to survive.” What seems plain to me, as you say too, people are heartset on making money and overlooking the effects on local and global environment.

Crazy idea I’m sure, but…

In busy parts of the sky aircraft vapour trails spread out and merge together resulting in less sunlight striking the ground beneath them. If we continuously flew aircraft, specially adapted to increase the volume and reflectivity of their vapour trails, over the vulnerable Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, laying down a sort of 21st century parasol above them, would this have any effect on the rate of melting? Mike Harding Roberts.