| LUCID PAGES | GLOBAL WARMING | |
| Overpopulation | Notice: This
page analyzes the physical and social issues associated with the
warming of the earth. Since you may find the following information
offensive, you agree that you shall defend, indemnify, and
hold harmless the author and the publisher against any and all claims,
losses, expenses, and lawsuits that may arise from this visit. Leave
now or read at your risk. PLANETARY HEAT SOURCES The interstellar space is extremely cold. Heat in the universe is concentrated around stars, which produce energy in thermonuclear reactions. Also our solar system has the major source of thermal radiation in the sun. Its energy propagates through empty space and reaches the surrounding planets. Energy that falls on the relatively tiny surfaces of planets represents far less than 1% of the overall radiated energy of the sun, but solar radiation is the dominant source heating planetary surfaces. The earth is no exception. The average energy reaching the outer layers of our atmosphere is 1,366 W per m2 [2]. Some of the energy is reflected back into space, some heats the atmosphere, but roughly 1,000 W reach every square meter of the surface of the earth [3]. Inside the earth, geothermal energy keeps the planet liquid and hot. Sunshine and geothermal energy have existed ever since the formation of the earth. The early earth used to be much hotter than it is today, with lava flowing on the surface. The hot surface radiated a lot of energy into the free space, gradually cooled, and created a solid crust. Water gathered at lower elevations and produced oceans and continents. Over time, cooling of the earth became so significant that a neutral thermal zone developed a few tens of meters under the surface. The temperature of the neutral layer is constant and unaffected by the sun. Hundreds of meters below the surface, the geothermal heat begins to become noticeable, and temperatures are very hot in the deepest mines, some reaching more than 1 km into the earth's crust. Although geothermal energy is still being lost through thermal radiation into the free space, this process is very slow, and solar radiation is the main force that affects the surface temperature of the earth. Without the sun, the whole surface would freeze solid, and temperatures would drop below those of the Antarctic winter. Sources of Climatic Changes Climatic changes are events that can be local or global, but usually involve both aspects. Local changes only cause redistribution of the total heat of the planet. More significant impact occurs when the overall energy of the earth is changed. This can happen for several reasons, and even small deviations, not exceeding 1% of the total energy, can have major effect on climate, plant growth, animal extinction, glaciation, wind patterns, or chemical composition of sea water. Catastrophic Events Meteorites and land-based volcanoes have been known to exert dramatic effects on the climate. Extinction of the dinosaurs is widely attributed to the impact of a meteorite. Also volcanic eruptions have similar effects. Eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 had global impact. For 15 months after the explosion, the average global temperature was 0.6°C cooler [10]. The released gases and ash particles stayed in the atmosphere and blocked sunshine from reaching the surface of the planet. However, the net effect of such events is cooling, and not global warming. Geothermal Energy Geothermal energy is abundant and has a potential to cause global warming. Heat is mainly released into the oceans through cracks between tectonic plates. A similar source of global heat is magma flowing out from land-based volcanoes. The overall energy of the planet is about the same, but is moved to the surface and affects climate. Heat also comes from underwater or subglacial volcanoes. In Antarctica, volcanic activity has been associated with increased movement of glaciers, and volcanic activity in the northeast of Greenland reduced the thickness of the ice sheet [7]. But volcanic and other geothermal activity has not been noticeably different in our time and is unlikely to be the force behind global warming. Sun Activity The radiant output of the sun is remarkably constant. Even during 11-year cycles associated with dark spots on the sun and reduced radiation, the overall energy output only drops by less than 0.25% [1]. More significant seasonal changes are caused by the mildly elliptic orbit of the earth and by the tilt of its axis. In the winter, the earth is the closest to the sun, about 150 million km away, and the southern hemisphere receives more peak sun energy that the northern hemisphere receives in the summer. However, the close proximity of the earth to the sun also results in faster movement of the earth around the sun, and southern summers are shorter by several days than northern hemisphere summers are. During the northern summer, the earth is less than 3% farther away from the sun and receives slightly less sunshine because of energy dispersion. Despite these seasonal changes, the energy of the sun reaching the earth is very constant from year to year. The only significant temperature deviations attributable to irradiance of the earth are caused by long-term cycles that seem to coincide with the ice ages. The cycles are occurring on the order of tens of thousands of years and are unlikely to be responsible for the temperature increases during the last 50 or 100 years. Indeed, recent research determined that ice ages and warm periods have been caused by variations in the amount of sunshine reaching the earth. Small changes in insolation have been responsible for the polar regions moving between arctic and temperate climates [58]. Human Activity Side by side with the above phenomena, there are subtle man-made effects associated with atmospheric changes. The changes arise from human activities and are caused by release of dust, soot, ash, and greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide among others). The main sources of these pollutants are coal-burning power plants; vehicles that burn gasoline and diesel; wood, coal, and natural gas that are burned for cooking and heating, deliberately started forest fires, and decaying organic matter, such as dead plants and animal feces. These sources of pollutants have multifold impact. Burning of fossil fuels reduces the reflectivity of glaciers by covering them with soot. Solar energy that used to be reflected is now absorbed by glaciers and causes surface melting. The other problem is that greenhouse gases are typically produced by burning. The gases are hot and increase the overall heating of the atmosphere. By contrast, ash and dirty automobile exhaust rise in the atmosphere and reduce the amount of sunshine reaching the surface of the earth. This blanketing phenomenon produces cooling. Greenhouse gases have the opposite effect. They allow sun rays to penetrate to the surface of the earth, but limit reflection of heat into the outer space. The overall impact of planetary cooling and warming happens to be such that the temperatures of the land, water, and air increase. The changes show as global temperature rise by 0.74°C over the last 100 years [53], melting of polar ice caps, changes in precipitation patterns, and shifting of natural habitats of plants and animals. Interestingly, despite the proclamations in Kyoto, overall carbon emissions between 2000 and 2005 grew four times faster than in the previous decade [41]. The rise is essentially caused by three factors: The first is growing industrialization and consumerism in the Third World. The second factor is population growth. More people increase the overall demand for energy. And the third factor is globalization of production. Third-World countries, which have the weakest environmental protection laws and practices, have become the manufacturing centers for the whole world. PHYSICS OF HEAT TRANSFER Solar energy arrives to earth through the free space by means of radiation (photons). They collide with the atmosphere. Some photons are reflected back into the free space, some are absorbed by the atmosphere, some hit the land, and others are absorbed or reflected by the oceans. At every optical boundary of the earth, photons face the possibility of being either reflected with some loss of energy, or being totally absorbed by the earth. Both possibilities remove some energy of the photons in the form of heat. The heat is distributed to other areas of the globe by conduction or by thermal radiation. Radiation is particularly noticeable on a hot summer night, when objects that were heated during the day emit energy. Part of the energy is absorbed by the nearby surfaces, and part escapes through the atmosphere into the free space. The thermal radiation is invisible, but has the same basic properties as that of the visible photons arriving from the sun. Thermal reflectivity of materials determines how much energy gets absorbed and how much energy is reflected away, often into the free space. It is well known that mirrors have excellent reflectivity, exceeding 99%. Only less than 1% of light gets converted to heat in a mirror. Other materials that are good reflectors of sunshine have smooth and white surfaces. Snow and ice are particularly good reflectors of sunshine. They reflect between 45% and 85% and absorb between 15% and 55% of the incoming energy [4]. By contrast, open water reflects less than 20% and absorbs more than 80% of sunlight [36]. The difference in absorption between ice and water is between 25% and 65% of the total incoming energy. The Arctic sea ice normally covers at least 5,000 km2 and makes a potent reflector. Its loss would not only cause heating of the arctic region, but would also release millions of tons of greenhouse gases from the permafrost. This is why sensible scientists are very concerned about the state of the Arctic sea ice. If the ice sheet goes, chances are that nothing will stop further warming of the planet. Next to transfer of heat by radiation, heat is also transferred by conduction through matter. Water is known to conduct and absorb heat very well. One reason for this ability is relatively high specific gravity of water (1000 kg/m3). Thermal properties of water cause that it acts as a reservoir of heat. Water absorbs a lot of energy and needs to receive a lot of heat to change temperature. In turn, water tends to retain its temperature for a long time when heat is being lost. The practical impact is that coastal areas usually have relatively cool summers and relatively warm winters. This effect is strong in San Diego, California. Daytime winter temperatures of the air rarely dip below 15°C, and summer heat wave rarely makes it above 35°C. By contrast, dry air has very low average density (1.29 kg/m3). As a result, air tends to warm up or cool down quickly and has low ability to store heat. Similar properties exist in some solid materials, such as sand, quartz, or glass. They are poor thermal conductors and poorly store heat. This is why mornings in the desert are cold. The heat trapped during the day escapes quickly into the outer space at night. Other rocks, such a lava, have substantially better ability to trap heat than quartz has. Lava rocks heated by the sun during the day provide heat for many hours after sunset and can be used to effectively heat homes at night. These properties of materials (heat transfer and ability to trap heat) have major impact on the temperatures of the air and sea. In addition to physical properties, materials have physiological properties that are difficult to express in numbers. Cold wet air tends to rob people of their body heat and cause hypothermia. Hot humid air can result in fatigue and heart attack. By contrast, dry hot air can be bearable even at temperatures that would normally be deadly. These physiological effects need to be considered because global warming is not an issue of warming of the planet, but of survival of life. PHYSICS OF ICE MELTING Acceleration of melting of polar ice caps and mountain glaciers over the last decade not only indicates that climatic changes are happening, but also result in more significant changes through positive feedback. Melting ice exposes organic materials and releases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The gases enhance the greenhouse effect and lead to further increase in global temperatures. As temperatures rise, water vapor is produced in larger amounts. And water vapor is a very potent and abundant greenhouse agent. Consequently, more sunshine is trapped by the earth, and the thermal system behaves like a runaway train, steadily increasing its speed. Temperature increases are similar to other natural events. At first, the changes are imperceptible and give the impression of an equilibrium. Then the changes show very weakly. After some time, the changes start growing exponentially. This moment indicates transition from a linear and nicely behaved system into a nonlinear one. When that happens, the changes are rapid, very complex, and impossible to characterize by means of computational methods. Not long after the onset of nonlinear characteristics, which show a sudden curvature in a graphical representation, there is a catastrophic systemic failure. Loss of ice happens not only through melting, but also through sublimation, which means direct transformation of ice into water vapor. Unlike melting, sublimation happens even below the freezing point of water. This mechanism has received little attention in the media and is apparently believed to be only marginal relative to ice melting. Whether or not this assumption is correct is unclear. The fact is that the arctic ice has shown remarkable thinning over the last few years [11]. This phenomenon has largely been attributed to lapping. Lapping means that warm ocean gently runs warm water underneath the arctic ice and melts it. Some researchers have reported that lapping occurs even in the middle of the arctic winter. The decline of sea ice through thinning has now become more significant than the loss of ice caused by shrinkage of the ice extent. Regardless of the decrease in sea ice area, some experts predict that the loss of sea ice through thinning should lead to no summer ice by the year 2015. Since both mechanisms act concurrently, the Arctic ocean may have no summer sea ice within a few years. Melting of ice is a phenomenon with three stages. First, the ice needs to be brought to the melting point of 0°C. Second, the ice needs to receive thermal energy to break the physical bonds of the ice and turn it into water at 0°C. Third, the remaining heat increases the water temperature until all the heat is used up. But this is only a theoretical example. In real life, water often exist in all its forms at the same time. Since ice and snow have limited thermal conductivity, ice can melt at the surface, but the ice core can stay well below freezing. Similarly, the surface of a lake can become warm within a short time, but it takes many hot days before water temperature increases at depth. To accelerate ice melting, it is advantageous to reduce thermal resistance of the ice by applying heat to a large area. An ice floe 1 km2 that is 10 m thick will take much longer to melt than an ice floe 100 km2 that is 0.1 m thick, even though the amounts of ice are the same. This relationship has a practical impact because the sea ice in the arctic has become considerably thinner in the last 5 years. Assuming that similar thermal trends persist in the arctic, future melting of sea ice should occur much faster and should affect a larger area than ever before. To get a physical understanding of thermal energy, it is useful to employ the basic unit of heat calory. One calory is the amount of heat energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1°C. This relationship works the same way whether the water is frozen or liquid. As an example, 1 gram of ice needs to receive 10 calories to bring the ice from -10°C to 0°C. Similarly, 1 gram of water needs to receive 10 calories to bring the water from 0°C to +10°C. The striking thing about ice melting is that a huge amount of heat is needed to convert ice into water of the same temperature. To melt 1 gram of ice at 0°C to 1 gram of water at 0°C, the required heat is 80 calories. That is a lot of heat. It could warm up 1 gram of water from 0°C to 80°C. When these ratios are applied to global warming, it becomes clear that 10 times more heat is needed to melt ice than to raise the temperature of the melted water by 8°C. And that is something to think about. The immediate concern is that once most of the arctic sea ice melts, heat trapped by the greenhouse effect will cause rapid rise in Arctic sea temperatures. During the last decade, unexpected changes associated with global warming have been taking place in Greenland, and darkening of the surface of the ice undoubtedly contributes to the process. Quite unexpectedly, thousands of lakes, canals, and deep vertical shafts (moulins) with gushing meltwater have occurred at the surface of the glaciers [23]. The ice cap is over 0.5 mile high many miles inland, and yet is riddled with vertical holes [8]. In July 2006, a lake full of meltwater emptied its 0.044 km3 volume into a 1 km deep moulin within 90 minutes [5]. The produced meltwater not only damages a glacier structurally, but also lubricates the bottom of the glacier and allows faster movement downhill. What mechanism causes that melted water creates vertical shafts all the way to the bedrock is not understood by scientists, but similar shafts also exist in other materials. The moulins of Greenland are strikingly similar to limestone and sandstone formations. Tributaries of the Colorado have many water-carved rocks. A narrow opening is often at the surface; a deep vertical shaft extends into the rock, and the bottom typically has a chamber or a small lake, which may be the source of a stream emerging at the base of the rock. Water apparently has the ability to seep through ice and sandstone, and develop enough pressure to force its way downward to the bedrock. Countless sandstone formations bear witness to this mechanism, but there is an additional force acting within a glacier. It is well known that the surface of a lake evaporates in a hot weather. But when water is brought to a boiling point, something else happens. The water evaporates not only from its surface, but from the whole volume. This mechanism produces a lot of steam and physical disintegration of the liquid. By analogy, a similar phenomenon should exist when ice changes into water. With enough internal heat, a glacier may start melting not only at the surface, but also could be disintegrating and melting within the whole volume. The countless cracks, crevasses, shafts, canals, and cavities recently found in the Greenland glaciers might be the consequence of such transformation. Another indication of this mechanism of disintegration was noticed in the winter of 2009 by Canadian scientists, who saw ice flows in the arctic break up into ice pulp. The ice, known as "rotten ice," apparently has such weak internal bonds that it is unable to preserve its usual shape. The idea that heat could penetrate more than 1 km thick glacier appears preposterous. But what if it is truly so? All that is needed is temperature of about 0°C and enough time. After a few years or decades, the glacier may absorb enough heat to weaken its molecular bonds and start disintegrating throughout its volume. Large internal cavities inside the ice occur. Some time later, the surface layers cave in, become eroded by the melting water or create rivers of ice flowing toward the sea. The once mighty glacier suddenly begins to look a lot like the canyons of Utah. Few solid rocks are standing, and there is plenty of rubble at the foot. No one has seen this glacial decay happen in the past because glaciers have only been melting at the surface until recently. However, the broken blocks of ice have jagged features with large surfaces as they flow downhill. The large surfaces increase melting and further break up the deteriorating ice. In addition to the described form of breakup, the floating arctic sea ice seems to begin to show disintegration throughout its area. In previous decades, summer heat would melt ice along the edges while preserving thick and practically continuous ice cover in the middle of the ice sheet. Between 2005 and 2010, the floating ice sheet has lost a lot of its original thickness. Because of this reduction, large areas that melt in the summer cannot be easily covered by the remaining ice, and areas of low concentrations of ice are becoming common. This phenomenon seems to be strong in the summer of 2010, and the melt season may end up with substantial areas of open water in the middle of the ice sheet. Some of today's scientists do not fully understand what is happening. They pay all attention to rise and fall in temperature, and this attitude does not help them to understand the dynamics of global warming. Even with an overall warming trend, temperatures are bound to increase or decrease substantially. Melting ice absorbs heat from the surrounding warmer air and water, and the energy is used to give frozen water liquidity. The overall reduction of heat in the system sends ripples of cold snaps thousands of kilometers away. The thermal changes need time to propagate to other parts of the world. The reason is that water and air have finite thermal conductivity, and also sea and atmospheric streams do not transfer heat instantaneously. But the more ice melts, the more heat is removed from the global system. The loss of heat often brings the average regional temperature below that prior to ice melting. The relative cold causes that melting slows down, stops, or even reverses. Meanwhile, fresh water released by converting the ice to liquid floats over the salty ocean water and spreads far and wide. Since fresh water already freezes at 0°C and salt water only freezes at about 2.5°C, the likely effect is that the extent of arctic ice increases relative to previous years. But focusing one's attention on ice extent alone is a mistake. Ice coverage is specified by the NSIDC as an area that has more than 15% of ice. It could be 16% or 100%. The ice extent does not specify the exact percentage of coverage or the quality of the ice. A more important factor than ice extent is the total volume of ice in the ocean. The volume is directly proportional to the heat needed to convert the ice to water. Naturally, it would be highly desirable to know how much heat the ice already holds and how much heat needs to be added to convert the solid into a liquid. These numbers depend on the quality of ice. At this point, when everything is frozen to a maximum, the earth needs time to capture additional heat of the sun to restart ice melting. The ice extent in the arctic delays this process. But the next time around, the process is easier because there is more open water, which traps more heat, and greenhouse gases released from permafrost and shallows of the Arctic ocean enhance global warming. Because of such thermal cycling, the winter of 2008/2009 was cold in North America and Europe. But this does not mean that the summer of 2009 is destined to be cold, too. The 21st century brought significant melting of arctic ice. The trend continues at ever faster pace, which suggests that ice melting is entering the nonlinear territory. The accelerated retreat of ice also hints that there is plenty of heat in the global system to melt more ice, and apparently plenty of energy to raise the temperature of the water to high levels. This notion is striking because transformation of ice into water removes so much energy from the global system. The hope is that this powerful opposing mechanism will produce an equilibrium one day. But such a hope may not materialize. Traditional thinking suggests that ice changes into water in a linear fashion. When you put an ice cube in a beaker, the temperature of the meltwater will not start rising noticeably until all ice has melted. In the nature, this mechanism does not apply because of thermal resistance. Meltwater on top of glaciers clearly manifests that the beaker model is invalid and local heating can result in ice melting. It might even be possible to melt ice below 0°C. Water boils at lower temperatures as air pressure is lowered, and melting of glaciers at 2 km above the sea level might be affected in the same manner. In addition, over the last 100 years or so, ice may have been gradually absorbing the necessary thermal energy to break up the internal bonds. The energy need not be supplied now; most of the energy might already be in the glaciers. At this point, only a relatively small amount of additional heat can cause glacier disintegration and melting. This mechanism might explain why the increased melting of glaciers does not significantly cool the environment. On the contrary, the warming trend is strengthening. This fact suggests that the energy removed by melting ice is less than the extra energy trapped by the greenhouse effect. The extra energy is what drives global warming. How this energy is distributed on earth determines where melting of ice occurs. Although the earth may trap sufficient additional heat in a given year to cause dramatic melting, the heat is not simply concentrated where ice is. In the case of the arctic, some of the extra heat directly affects the sea ice; some heat is used up to melt snow and ice on land, some heat melts underwater methane hydrates, and some just warms the air, water, and land. If the heat were concentrated closer to the ocean floor, larger portion of thermal energy might go to methane hydrates, and a smaller portion would be left to melt the Arctic sea ice. This sharing of heat may cause a temporary slowdown in melting of the sea ice, but the release of methane into the air will trap more heat on earth, and the sea ice will experience dramatic decline in the following years. ELEMENTS OF CHANGE Heat is the obvious agent of melting. The most common elements supplying heat are sunshine, air, and water. Sunshine melts snow and ice directly. White snow tends to reflect most energy of the sun, but transparent ice absorbs the energy and is more likely to melt. It is no surprise that clear ice cubes quickly melt when exposed to direct sunshine, but the effect of warm air is important, too. Warm wind can obliterate massive ice formations within weeks. Dramatic thinning of the arctic ice in 2007 [51] and 2008 [11] was undoubtedly strongly affected by warm winds. The autumn air temperatures in 2008 were 5°C above normal in the Arctic [56], and the unusually high temperature in combination with the speed of the arctic winds resulted in unprecedented loss of ice thickness. Even more potent element is water. The Arctic ocean has increased its temperature in recent decades. For the first time ever, rain was recorded in the arctic in September 2007 [55]. On the Antarctic peninsula, rain existed for decades, but its intensity and frequency have been increasing in recent years. And rain has a strong effect on melting of glaciers [54]. The warmer, stronger, and more frequent rain is, the more damage it does to glaciers. Air can deliver only a small amount of heat, but rain stores a huge amount of energy and melts glaciers much faster than sun or warm air do. This unexpected new phenomenon of polar rain may cause that glaciers may melt within a fraction of the time it would take if sun and wind acted alone. So far, global warming predictions have not considered the effects of warm rain on glaciers. Under the influence of rain, massive glaciers might melt within years, instead of centuries. CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING Recordings of climate over the last 100 years indicate an increase in global temperature by about 0.74°C. Neither sun activity nor geothermal activity can account for the added global heat; these heat sources have been stable as usual. By contrast, the greenhouse effect seems to explain the heating trend. Documenting this effect is not easy because the financial, scientific, technological, and human resources are not available to convincingly demonstrate this point with hard data. The issue can only be resolved by applying one's emotional intelligence. The conclusions are the following:
THE EFFECTS OF ICE MELTING The earth has three dominant bodies of ice and snow. They are the Arctic sea ice, the Greenland glaciers, and the Antarctic glaciers. The Arctic sea ice may disappear at the North Pole during the summer months of 2010. This prediction may seem unreal, but is entirely possible. A lot depends on the strength of positive feedback caused by the release of greenhouse gases from the permafrost. Ice melting in July 2009 has been strong and will undoubtedly further weaken the arctic ice sheet, even when no previous record is broken. Also winds and ocean currents are significant contributors to the melting of sea ice. Since the arctic ice has thinned dramatically over the last few years, the ice sheet is likely to fragment into very small sections under the influence of wind, ocean currents, and internal thermodynamic forces. The fragments will be much more susceptible to melting because of increased surface area per volume of ice. The ice is already in water, and melting will not raise the sea level any higher. The total volume of the Arctic sea ice is relatively small, but the area is large. Loss of the Arctic sea ice will significantly increase absorption of sun rays by the ocean and cause further warming that will have a global impact. The Greenland glaciers cover an area of 2 million km2 and are up to 3 km thick. Because of their thickness, Greenland glaciers are more resistant to global warming than sea ice is. Nevertheless, the glaciers might disintegrate within 20 years. If everything melted, the sea level would rise by about 6 meters. In all likelihood, only about one-third or one-half will melt during this period, raising the worldwide sea levels by about 2 or 3 meters. Contrary to this prediction, the worst alarmists among researchers expect maximum rise in sea levels of 1 meter by the end of the century [26]. This is an interesting phenomenon, because most global warming studies refer to the end of the century. Had they predicted significant climatic changes within 10 or 20 years, the responsible scientists would probably be fired. No one wants to hear bad news, no matter how true and topical. Rather than to face reality, the natural reaction of the psychopathic mankind is to kill the messenger. Studies of global warming indicate rapid temperature rise during the last decade, particularly in the polar regions. Arctic fall temperatures in 2007 and 2008 were about 5°C above what used to be normal in previous decades [20]. The increase in temperature correlates with the reduced extent of Arctic sea ice. A significantly smaller minimum coverage was set in 2005. In 2007, the area covered by Arctic sea ice was even smaller and represents an all-time minimum since records started in 1979. The year 2008 saw the second strongest decline of sea ice coverage in the arctic, but the ice volume reached an all-time minimum [6]. Interestingly, in the winter of 2007/2008, the average thickness of Arctic sea ice fell by 10% relative to previous five winters [11]. Also the Greenland glaciers have manifested major losses. Ice loss in the summer of 2008 was almost 3 times the amount lost in 2007 [15]. Greenland ice loss is now more than 200 km3 per year [22]. And just 360 km3 are enough to raise the global sea level by 1 millimeter. The Antarctic glaciers represent about 90% of the total frozen water on earth. Antarctic glaciers are up to 3 km thick and cover almost the entire Antarctic continent of 14 million km2. If all these glaciers melted, the worldwide sea levels would rise by more than 60 meters. Such a scenario is remote in our lifetime. Melting may proceed unevenly because Antarctica has distinct glacial regions. West Antarctica is much smaller than the eastern segment is, but includes the Antarctic peninsula, which is glacially most unstable. By contrast, East Antarctica appears more resistant to global warming and even accumulates new snow on its glaciers [18]. This paradox is caused by global warming. Antarctica is essentially a cold desert with very low precipitation. Increased snowing in recent years has resulted from warming of the ocean. Because of these effects, East Antarctica is safe for now and may be in a good shape for the next 10 to 20 years, but once the Arctic sea ice disappears and also much of Greenland becomes exposed to sunshine, the situation may change rapidly. By 2030, East Antarctica may look like Greenland of today, with massive melting along the edges, glaciers speeding toward the sea, countless lakes of meltwater dotting the surface, and surface streams and deep moulins eroding ice. In spite of the relative stability of the Antarctic ice, noticeable changes are happening now, mainly on the Antarctic peninsula. Rising temperatures in West Antarctica (2°C over the last 50 years) could lead to rise in sea level by as much as 5 m if all the ice melted [9]. Among the first indicators of warming has been significant and ongoing disintegration of ice shelves on the Antarctic peninsula over the last 30 years [37]. In 2002, a huge ice shelf known as Larsen B shattered into icebergs [13]. Another major frozen body, the Wilkins ice sheet, is currently in the process of severe disintegration. This ice sheet has held glaciers on land from advancing toward the sea. When ice shelves disappear, movement of Antarctic glaciers tends to increase 8 fold [14]. Consequently, some glaciers may enter the sea whole, instead of gradually melting ashore. The characteristics of the West Antarctic glaciers and coastal areas are such that they make this scenario very likely; the bedrock upon which West Antarctic glaciers rest is below the sea level. [16]. Even if only one-tenth of these glaciers slid into the sea, the sea level could rise by almost 0.5 m. The rise would affect low-lying areas worldwide. Currently, the Antarctic peninsula has hundreds of glaciers that have increased their movement toward the sea [17]. Coastal glaciers of Antarctica are now losing almost as much ice as Greenland does [19]. On top of the slow disintegration of ice shelves over the last few decades, significant melting of glaciers in West Antarctica was detected in 2005. Maximum temperatures reached +5°C and caused melting of ice even at 2 km above sea level [35]. Interestingly, this unusual phenomenon of ice melting at high elevations came to Greenland at least 5 years earlier. In 2006, ice loss in West Antarctica was 132 billion tons (132 km3) a year, which is 59% more than during the last decade [25]. In addition to the named sources of ice, there are mountain glaciers in Alaska, Andes, Himalayas, but the mass of these glaciers is insignificant on the global scale. Paradoxically, glaciers in the Andes and Himalayas are critically important as sources of water for a billion people. Rapid ice melting during the last decades is a process caused by rising levels of greenhouse gases. That the levels of carbon dioxide have been rising throughout the industrial revolution is no surprise. The facts have been known, and hardly anyone cared about the very remote potential impact. Only some experts considered that high levels of carbon dioxide could harm the climate one day. Melting of arctic snow and ice was considered as a possible outcome. But such events were hundreds, if not thousands, years in the future. Experts were also contemplating, in purely academic terms, that melting ice would release greenhouse gases trapped under ice and in permafrost. The possibility of this happening has been entertained by scholars for a long time. In 2006, one study [46] found historical evidence that warming of oceans releases methane [45], and another study documented that vast amounts of methane in the atmosphere caused major warming 180 million years ago. Still, it was unclear if melting of underwater ice could release methane in the air now. The hypothesis of warming caused by the release of greenhouse gases from permafrost was somewhat shaken when a 2006 study found that atmospheric methane, which caused warming 12,000 years ago, did not come from sea-floor deposits [44]. However, historical records show that methane has been increasing in the atmosphere over the last 200 years. The levels stabilized in the late 1990's and resumed to rise in 2006 [47]. This is also the year when the first strong hints occurred that melting permafrost might be raising the levels of methane in the atmosphere [48]. In 2006, permafrost was melting in north Siberia, and methane bubbles rose to the surface of the meltwater [49]. Melting of Siberian permafrost has continued at a faster rate in the last two years. In early 2009, Siberian lakes were five times larger than they were in 2006 [57]. Christensen et al. estimate that the arctic has about 900,000 km2 of wetlands releasing methane [39]. Methane concentrations have become so high that Siberian wetlands do not freeze even at -40°C [40]. In addition, recent arctic studies by Semiletov et al. discovered that about 800,000 km2 of the East Siberian Sea are bubbling with methane [38]. The contribution of methane gas to global warming has only been about 23% up till now [43]. This proportion is likely to change quickly as more methane is released. And methane is about 21 times more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is [42]. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases have been followed by increased melting of ice and by rising sea levels. Worldwide ice loss has been big. NASA found that more than 2 trillion tons of land-based glaciers have melted between 2003 and 2008 [12]. This is equivalent to a wall of ice that is roughly 1km high, 1km thick, and 2,000 km long. Also the rise of sea levels has accelerated: 1 mm per year 100 years ago 2 mm per year 20 years ago 3 mm per year since 2000 [24]. The rate of acceleration hints that the relationship is becoming nonlinear. Based on the overall trend, sea levels may be rising 4 mm per year by the fall of 2009, 10 mm per year by 2011, and much faster thereafter. The rise in water level of world oceans is caused by melting of ice and by thermal expansion of water. Both contributions are significant and increase with rising temperature. How fast the oceans rise will depend on positive feedback mechanisms. The release of methane from permafrost and seas has begun, but predicting the rate of the escape is not possible. The possibilities are wild, and almost anything can happen within a few years. The above predictions may seem ridiculous to some readers. In reality, the ridiculous thing is how professionals, public figures, and common people approach global warming. Experts can see that climatic changes are happening so fast that they cannot be followed or understood [27]. New studies show that arctic warming is happening faster than the worst case predictions [28], and events are now 30 years ahead of computer models [30]. The reasons for the discrepancies are many. Computer models cannot be accurate when modeling something as complex as the global climate. There are always some variables that are not considered, modeled correctly, or understood. For example, the dynamics of glaciers have never been taken into account when modeling climate change [32]. And even if they had been considered, behaviors of moulins penetrating to the bedrock defy belief-based reasoning and expectations [31], and could not have been modeled correctly. Because of belief-based reasoning, some scientists believe that sea level rise by about 5 meters would take millennia, or at least centuries [33]. Other scientists want to understand whether or not the rapid climatic changes are natural or caused by humans [29]. Some scientists oppose the idea that global warming is caused by man [34]; others attribute global warming to natural cycles, and some even claim that the earth is cooling. In view of reality on the ground, such attitudes may seem inconceivable, but are typically human. It is factually correct that some areas of the earth have been getting cooler than they were in the past. But these small regions are exceptions in the overall trend of warming. Another often cited claim is that the area of polar ice has been growing. Even this claim may be true in some regions, but the arctic as a whole is losing ice volume rapidly. By contrast, the Antarctic climate is more difficult to understand. Some researchers found cooling, while others discovered warming. Ice cover has been increasing, and also the thickness of ice has been found to grow. The depleted ozone layer (the hole) has been associated with the phenomenon. But even with the increased volume of ice, Antarctica need not be cooling; the cold may just be distributed differently. Instead of concentration of cold in the east Antarctic glaciers, the cold is distributed to a wider area. This mechanism does not preclude that the overall thermal energy of Antarctica is increasing. Similarly, flow of lava from a volcano does not indicate that the whole volume of the earth is getting hotter. The heating is localized, and the total energy of earth is probably decreasing because the surface heat is radiated into the outer space. GLOBAL WARMING CONSEQUENCES The issue is not the arctic, but the whole world. The rapid changes occurring in the arctic have begun affecting the Antarctica. The big issue is what happens next. Global warming has already resulted in noticeable climatic changes all over the earth. These changes will be getting more pronounced as global warming advances. The obvious and immediate impact is loss of Arctic sea ice. The nearby Greenland glaciers, which are on land, will likely disintegrate during the 2020's and 2030's. Severe glacial disintegration can also be expected on the Antarctic peninsula and in Western Antarctica. Glaciers in the Rockies, Himalayas, or Andes will probably disappear altogether during the same time frame. Eastern Antarctica may resist 10 or 20 years longer before its glaciers show significant melting. Melting of glaciers will raise sea levels worldwide. There is enough ice to raise the sea levels by 70 meters. How fast and how much ice will melt is debatable, but the overall trend suggests that much of Florida, Bangladesh, and Netherlands could be under water by 2030. Loss of ice will also affect wind patterns and ocean streams, and change entire ecosystems. Some areas will have increased drought (western USA, Australia, Sahara, and Amazon) while others will have increased rainfall (Alaska, central and northern Europe, equatorial Africa, and Siberia). Northern latitudes will lose a lot of permafrost. This will produce bogs and swamps, and disrupt infrastructure (pipelines, roads, airfields, and foundations of buildings). Some places will become too hot to grow traditional crops or any crops at all. Many rivers, ponds, lakes, and seas will become too hot to support life. Lack of oxygen and overgrowth of toxic algae will kill most water dwellers. Oceans will stop being sources of food. Fish, sea birds, sea mammals, and people will starve and die. The effects of global warming together with overpopulation will cause wars and deaths. Many developing countries will cease to exist. There may be 2 billion environmental refugees by the year 2040. Australia, South Africa, Europe, and North America might be overrun, and Western civilization might collapse. There will be failed states, such as Somalia. Everyone will fight and kill everyone else. The situation will be further worsened by population increase. This aspect is virtually ignored by global-warming scientists. Thus, even if we reduced greenhouse emission in relative terms, the absolute emissions would increase much more because of population growth. Now we have 6.7 billion people. By 2050, the number of people on earth may reach 9 billion. Since global warming is progressing fast, most plants and animals will be unable to adapt to the new conditions. There will be mass extinction, and invasive species will take over habitats. Beetles are already invading North American forests. Rising temperatures in Alaska have caused spreading of spruce bark beetle that has damaged millions of acres of forests [21]. Similar infestation has affected province of British Columbia in Canada and threatens to spread eastward. Furthermore, exotic plants and animals multiply and displace native species. This trend will only get worse as global warming intensifies. In addition, dangerous insects from equatorial regions are spreading north and south, and carry fatal diseases. Unfortunately, problems caused by global warming cannot be solved with the current mentality, and it is unlikely that the mentality will change any time soon. Most nations will do nothing. Others will try to counter global warming with technical solutions, but this approach will not work, and people will keep producing more greenhouse gases. The reason behind the expected failure is people's desire to improve their economic standard of living. This social mentality has been strongly manifested in South America, where poor people want to have mines and smelters in their communities, even though development damages the environment and causes crippling illnesses. Incidentally, unavoidable things are bound to happen on earth, and the consequences will be deadly. GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS Despite a huge body of evidence collected over the last century and especially during the recent decades, most people do not accept or do not care that global warming is happening. On the contrary, many individuals proclaim that the earth is actually cooling. Manifestation of such mentality shows as narrowly focused mentation. Any fact suggesting a cooling is brought to the forefront, and any evidence of the warming trend is disbelieved and rejected. Exactly the same mentality is manifested by religious believers who disagree with the theory of evolution. There is no fact or evidence in the world that could persuade a believer in God that things are different. The reason behind the inability to understand the world is loss of emotional intelligence and predominance of belief-based reasoning. The failure to persuade such people is not in the science of global warming or in the presentation of the information, but in the damaged brains of the skeptics. Clinical work has revealed that changing the minds of people with poor emotional intelligence is next to impossible. Anyone who intends to try is strongly urged not to waste his or her time. The people are unable to make the necessary mental associations; they are biologically brain-damaged. Many skeptics may have a high IQ and may be scientists studying the earth, but loss of emotional intelligence hampers their understanding of reality. The efforts of the sensible public should instead focus on the removal of the misguided geniuses from positions of social power and on the implementation of policies that reduce human impact on the environment. Naturally, this is just a theoretical proposal. In practice, things will not always work to the liking of true climate experts. Loss of emotional intelligence is an epidemic affecting the majority of mankind, and it is very unlikely that the relatively few sensible people who understand what is going on will have any impact on the misguided masses. Some of the reasoning deficits exhibited by global warming skeptics are seen in the mentality of children under the age of ten when two containers fully filled with the same amount of water are put in front of a child. One container is tall and slim, and the other is low and broad. The volumes are the same, but the young child believes that the tall container has more water. The child puts too much stress on one aspect, height. The reason is that height is important to a child. She judges herself and other people by height. Because of her undeveloped brain, she is unable to take a multifaceted look at something and correlate several factors at once. This defective mentality is also manifested by global warming deniers. They put too much stress on the area of arctic ice. When the ice extent increases the following year, they consider it a proof that the earth is cooling. A sensible person with intact emotional intelligence would consider not just the ice extent, but also the overall volume of the ice and the long-term trend. The year 2007 produced a record minimum sea ice cover in the arctic, but the year 2008 resulted in a record minimum ice volume. So in terms of energy used up to melt ice, the year 2008 was a record year. The year 2009 has seen the third lowest extent of Arctic sea ice by mid September. Interestingly, the summer of 2009 has been associated with the highest global sea temperatures since record keeping started in the late 1800's. The record summer temperatures do not nicely correlate with the third lowest Arctic sea ice extent, but one needs to avoid comparing incomplete data. Until the ice thickness, density, and total volume in the Arctic sea are assessed, drawing any conclusions is premature. People with reduced emotional intelligence tend to focus on the reported ice extent and disregard everything else. They only respond to immediate happenings, but they poorly associate current events with long-term trends or with likely future happenings. Many skeptics claim that the year 1998 was the hottest year on record and all following years have manifested cooling of the earth because the record has not been broken. This is another form of defective emotional intelligence. Sensible people know that a warming trend is a long-term change with many ups and downs along the way. A trend does not imply that temperature rises monotonously and that every following year is consistently hotter. Similarly, a trend in global temperature rise does not directly translate into the amount of sea ice melting in the arctic. The years 1998 and 2007 suggest that temperature and ice melting are related in complex ways. Unfortunately, global warming skeptics are unable to understand such complex relationships; they tend to see the world in simplistic ways that are often incorrect. This is why some internet writers have reported that the earth is cooling. They have learned that 2007 was a year with minimum ice extent; 2008 saw the second lowest ice extent, and the 2009 melt season has ended "well above" 2007 or 2008 levels. But there is more behind the simple numbers of ice extent and needs to be accounted for. The American National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reports the Arctic sea ice extent on its website. Areas with at least 15% of ice are shown in solid white color and are fully counted as ice extent. The daily reports do not reveal the actual density of ice cover. An area with 20% of ice is depicted and counted the same way a solid ice flow is. Furthermore, the extent of ice does not reveal whether the areas of open water are created by ice melt or are caused by winds pushing the ice into smaller regions. Likewise, the ice extent offers no information about the thickness, quality, or inner level of energy of the sea ice. Another issue misunderstood by global warming skeptics is melting of ice in glaciers. The reduced emotional intelligence of skeptics concludes that melting glaciers cause water to run downhill. The size of the glacier and the ice cap that feeds the glacier are expected to decrease. This logic is applicable in most cases of the past, but the logic fails during the last decade. In recent years, many glaciers have increased their downhill movement several times relative to the 1980's or 1990's. The descent of glaciers to the foothills or to the sea is occurring so fast that the ice has no time to melt. As a result, there can be more ice at the coast than in the past. The increased amount of ice at the coast is perceived by the defective logic of skeptics as a proof that the earth is cooling. The recent discovery that all ice ages and warming periods have been caused by changes in insolation [58] is also misconstrued by skeptics. According to their flawed logic, global warming cannot be caused by humans, because all previous warming periods were caused naturally by increased insolation of the earth by the sun. The skeptics fail to understand that the same heating effect can be achieved by reducing the amount of sunshine that is reflected back into the free space. The heat retention is produced by greenhouse gases. The concentrations of the greenhouse gas CO2 have increased from about 270 ppm to 385 ppm over the last 300 years. During this geologically short period, the earth has increased its ability to trap more heat than before. Consequently, the temperature of the earth has been gradually increasing, in proportion with the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. Naturally, defective emotional intelligence also manifests as self-centered attitude. This is why many skeptics who recently experienced cold weather in their neck of the woods believe that the cold cannot be a sign of global warming. In the minds of the skeptics, global is where they are. No global warming here. If anything, it has been the coldest winter and the soggiest summer on record. CAN ANYTHING BE DONE? The outlined consequences of global warming may seem scary. Sensible people are genuinely worried, but the majority of people is indifferent because global warming seems like something in the distant future. Man is smart and will find ways to survive and adapt to possible climatic changes in the unlikely event that the catastrophic predictions happen to become true. We will have new technologies and clean sources of energy, and the natural pace of scientific progress will solve all future challenges even without extra effort on part of most people. Historically, people have always found ways to deal with adverse climatic conditions. This time will be no different. Yes, rising temperatures are a concern because our grandchildren may not inherit the same planet as we know today. But such issues are best to deal with when they become reality and not now, when they are just hypothetical scenarios, which may but need not happen. We have more immediate problems to worry about, such as unemployment, payment of mortgage, and having enough to eat. We are in no condition to worry about some future possibilities, when we have real problems right now. The above short-sighted belief is in sharp contrast with the views of those who have better vision. Most experts are scared and want to make changes in our energy policy; they want to cut greenhouse emissions by a substantial amount within a few years. Our technology is sufficiently advanced to slow down the global temperature rise. But we need changes now and immediately. The proactive approach seems more in line with the urgency life on earth experiences. But could the proposed solution make any real change? Both concerned and passive people put their hopes in technical solutions and human ingenuity. Sadly, such approaches will not work. Global warming is not caused by technical problems and cannot be solved with technical means. Climate change is a consequence of human behavior and lost emotional intelligence. No technology can change bad human behavior into a good one. People will do almost anything technical, but will be unwilling to change their behaviors. Human multiplication will continue, and our demand for energy will rise, too. These behavioral trends will more than offset improvements in energy efficiency and gains attributable to cleaner sources of energy. People will not change their behaviors unless they are forced to do so by the circumstances. But by then, the global climate will be in a runaway state, and no human intervention will be able to make a difference. The worst possible scenarios are likely to happen, and nothing practical can be done about it. REFERENCES [1] Insolation and Total Solar Irradiance. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://www.bookrags.com/ research/insolation-and-total-solar-irradian-woes-01/ [2] Insolation. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Insolation [3] Insolation, and a solar panel’s true power output. February 24, 2008. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/ insolation-and-a-solar-panels-true-power-output/ [4] Sea Ice Metrics. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://geog-www.sbs.ohio-state.edu/courses/G210/bmark/ Lecture06-Global%20Energy%20Balance.ppt [5] Lakes of Meltwater Can Crack Greenland’s Ice and Contribute to Faster Ice Sheet Flow. Retrieved December 18, 2008 from http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=40786&ct=162 [6] Robert Evans. December 16, 2008. Reuters. Arctic ice volume lowest ever as globe warms - U.N. Retrieved December 18, 2008 from http://www.canada.com/topics/technology/science/story.html?id=1082827 [7] Andrea Thompson, December 13, 2007. LiveScience. Magma May Be Melting Greenland Ice. Retrieved December 18, 2008 from http://www.livescience.com/environment/071213-greenland-magma.html [8] Richard Harris. Greenland's Mysterious Holes Speed Ice Flow to Sea. Retrieved December 18, 2008 from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17463283 [9] Richard Black, May 18, 2007. Earth - melting in the heat? Retrieved December 20, 2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4315968.stm [10] Global Effects of Mount Pinatubo. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1510 [11] Mariangela D'Acunto. October 28, 2008. European Space Agency. Arctic sea ice thinning at record rate. Retrieved December 18, 2008 from http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/esa-asi102808.php [12] Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070501-arctic-ice.html [13] Jenny Hogar. February 2, 2005. Antarctic ice sheet is an 'awakened giant.' Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://www.newscientist.com/article/ dn6962-antarctic-ice-sheet-is-an-awakened-giant.html [14] Final Wilkins Ice-Sheet Breakup Looms. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://climaticidechronicles.org/2008/11/28/ further-wilkins-ice-sheet-breakup-looms/ [15] Ohio State University. December 15, 2008. Greenland's Glaciers Losing Ice Faster This Year than Last. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/547420/ [16] The glaciologist's worst nightmare. Forget melting. The possibility of ice break-up could lead to an irreversible catastrophe. Dec 13, 2008. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://www.thestar.com/news/article/552439 [17] London (AFP) Jun 05, 2007. Antarctic Glaciers Flowing Faster. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Antarctic_Glaciers_Flowing_Faster_999.html [18] Antarctic Ice: A Global Warming Snow Job? May 27, 2005. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/ antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/ - [19] David Perlman. January 26, 2008 by The San Francisco Chronicle. Antarctic Glaciers Melting More Quickly. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/26/6643 [20] Robert S. Boyd - McClatchy Newspapers. Dec. 18, 2008. Arctic temperatures hit record high. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://www.opednews.com/articles/ Dangerous-Climate-Change--by-Andrew-Glikson-081206-176.htm [21] Issues: Global Warming. Natural Resources Defense Council. Retrieved December 20, 2008 from http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp [22] John Roach, August 10, 2006, Greenland Ice Sheet Is Melting Faster, Study Says. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-greenland.html [23] Ethan Gutmann. April 17, 2008. Greenland lake disappears under the ice. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/04/17/ greenland-lake-disappears-under-the-ice [24] Deborah , December 2, 2007. Shocking Awareness - Hundreds of Moulins in Greenland. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/ [25] Frances C. Moore. February 4, 2008. Ice Melt Accelerates Around the World. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from ttp://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Ice/2008.htm [26] Greenland ice melt leaves scientists 'shell shocked'. March 26 Mar, 2008. Retrieved December 18, 2008 from http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=3246 [27] Stacy Feldman. December 17, 2008. Scientists Sound Alarm on Arctic Melting, "Abrupt" Climate Change at AGU Meeting. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://solveclimate.com/blog/20081217/ [28] Thomas Omestad. December 16, 2008. Arctic Ice Melting at Alarming Pace as Temperatures Rise. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world /2008/12/16/ arctic-ice-melting-at-alarming-pace-as-temperatures-rise.html [29] Reuters. December 3, 2008. Soot darkens ice, stokes runaway Arctic melt: study. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/38772 [30] Richard A. Lovett. May 1, 2007. National Geographic News. Arctic Ice Melting Much Faster Than Predicted. Retrieved December 18, 2008 from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/ 2007-04-30-arctic-ice-melt_N.htm [31] Lonny Lippsett. December 15, 2005. Tracking an Ocean of Ice Atop Greenland A conversation with geologist Sarah Das. Retrieved December 18, 2008 from http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=9126§ionid=1001 [32] Robert Lee Hotz, Los Angeles Times, Sunday, July 2, 2006. Greenland's huge ice sheet is melting far faster than scientists expected. Retrieved December 17, 2008 fromhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/02/ MNGS0JM7611.DTL [33] Michael Kanellos. February 19, 2007. Greenland's ice is melting, but it won't be a green land tomorrow. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6160463-7.html Susan Solomon, senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [34] Marc Morano, 12/11/2008. More Than 650 Scientists Dissent Over Warming Claims. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?3bdc515f-70d4-4583-8af5-eb517991319f [35] Konrad Steffen, Alan Buis, Adriana Bailey, Jim Scott. May 15, 2007. NASA, CU-Boulder Study Shows Vast Regions Of West Antarctica Melted In Recent Past. Retrieved December 20, 2008 from http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2007/216.html [36] Kenneth Chang, December 8, 2002. Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say The New York Times, December 20, 2008. Retrieved December 20, 2008 from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res=9903E6DB1E3BF93BA35751C1A9649C8B63 [37] Jack Rosebro. 17 December 2008. Images of Antarctica’s Wilkins Ice Shelf Now Online Daily. Retrieved December 20, 2008 from http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/12/ images-of-antar.html [38] Mason Inman. December 19, 2008. National Geographic News. Methane Bubbling Up From Undersea Permafrost? Retrieved December 22, 2008 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081219-methane-siberia.html [39] Sid Perkins. Methane even escapes from freezing permafrost. Science News. January 3rd, 2009; Vol. 175 #1 (p. 10). [40] Don Cuddy. December 1, 2008. Standard Times. Visiting Environmentalist delivers grim message. Retrieved December 22, 2008 from http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID= /20081201/NEWS/812010369 [41] Catherine Brahic. November 10, 2006. Carbon emissions rising faster than ever. Retrieved December 22, 2008 from http://www.newscientist.com/article/ dn10507-carbon-emissions-rising-faster-than-ever.html [42] Methane. Retrieved December 22, 2008 from http://www.epa.gov/methane/scientific.html [43] Methane – A Ticking Bomb. Retrieved December 22, 2008 from http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/climate_change/ global_warming_basics/methane_greenhouse_gas_profile.html [44] Ed Brook. Ausust 24, 2006. Study rules out ancient 'bursts' of methane from seafloor deposits. Retrieved December 22, 2008 from http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases /2006-08/osu-sro082106.php [45] David Biello. August 29, 2006. Global Warming Spurs Ocean Methane Release. Retrieved December 22, 2008 from http://www.sciam.com/ [46] Climate Science. September 20th, 2005. Methane Release Caused Massive Global Warming 180 Million Years Ago. Retrieved December 22, 2008 from http://www.climatechange.com.au/2005/09/20/ [47] Adam Morton. November 3, 2008. Fears-mount-as-arctic-melt-prompts-historic-methane-rise Retrieved December 22, 2008 from http://www.theage.com.au/national/ [48] Ian Hoffman. Global warming could trigger methane release. Scientists think seabed gas plumes would result in even hotter climate. Retrieved December 22, 2008 from http://www.geo.oregonstate.edu/events/Press_2006/ 20060905_global_warming.pdf [49] Press release (dtd 7 Sep 2006) from Institute of Arctic Biology. Methane as a Greenhouse Gas. CCSP Research Highlight 1. Siberian lakes burp “time-bomb” greenhouse gas. Retrieved December 22, 2008 from http://www.climatescience.gov/infosheets/highlight1/highlight1-links.htm [51] Paul Eccleston. October 28, 2008. Arctic-ice-thickness-drops-by-up-to-19-per-cent.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3353930/ [53] Korea Green Foundation. Seoul, Republic of Korea, 9 September 2008. Lecture by Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change “The need for global low-emissions economic development. Retrieved January 8, 2009 from http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/ statements/application/pdf /080909_lecture_korea.pdf [54] Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent. January 16, 2009. Rain speeds Antarctic Peninsula glacier melt. Retrieved January 17, 2009 from http://uk.reuters.com/article/ environmentNews/idUKTRE50F35D20090116 [55] Alister Doyle. January 4th, 2008. Reuters Blogs. Environment. Global environmental challenges How often does it rain at the North Pole? Retrieved January 17, 2009 from http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/01/04/ how-often-does-it-rain-at-the-north-pole/ [56] New Scientist staff and Reuters. October 17, 2008. Arctic air temperatures hit record highs Retrieved January 17, 2009 from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14976 [57] Fred Pearce (March 25, 2009). Arctic meltdown is a threat to humanity. New Scientists. Retrieved March 27, 2009 from http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127011.500 [58] Long Debate Ended Over Cause, Demise Of Ice Ages? Research Into Earth's Wobble ScienceDaily (Aug. 7, 2009). Retrieved August 14, 2009 from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090806141512.htm | |
| Top of Page | ||
| Updated Jul 26, 2010 | Unpublished work © 2008-2010 Lucid Pages. All rights reserved. |