Kilimanjaro, the highest mountain in Africa, is an inactive stratovolcano, which peaks at 19,340 feet. It is located on the edge of the great Rift Valley, in the nation of Tanzania. The ice on the mountain has been there for about 11,000 years, but the quantity has been reduced by 82% in the last century. According to Ohio State University Professor Lonnie Thompson, who published his findings four years ago, in the journal Science, this is a particularly troubling fact; given that several prior global climate changes failed to cause a significant reduction in the quantity of ice on the mountain. In other words, something has changed. That something, according to scientists, is called global warming — and not the kind nature occasionally bestows upon us.

The evidence of glacial retreat, documented over the past several decades, is causing scientists to become more and more concerned about the global warming they attribute to manmade causes: specifically, the release of heat trapping gases into the atmosphere by corporate polluters, gas guzzling vehicles and the generation of electricity. In 2001, scientists at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, projected that if the current rate of ice deterioration were to continue, most of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers would disappear within just 15 years and the summit would be completely free of ice by the year 2020.

The dwindling quantity of ice on Kilimanjaro may be an abstract issue for most of us, but experts believe that tropical glaciers like those on Kilimanjaro are highly sensitive to climate change and, therefore, are good indicators of more serious global warming trends. If they’re correct, the melting ice on Kilimanjaro is just one in a series of events that will be triggered by climate change–and they’re not all taking place in Africa. In Peru, “the rate of glacier shrinkage is increasing exponentially — one glacier is racing uphill at 155 metres each year, 33 times the rate between 1963 and 1978.”

So what does all this mean? According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), it means that we are seeing the inevitable effects of our failure to curtail the introduction of harmful pollutants into our atmosphere: “With our industries billowing a relentless stream of gases into the atmosphere, trapping heat, we’re decimating our natural ecosystems, exacting an incalculable toll on our planet and future health.”

So why is it so hard to convince people to cut back on the practices that cause such disturbing trends? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the evidence to support the damage that will result from global warming includes so many hypotheticals–many of which are not expected to take place for many years. The challenge, it appears, is convincing people to act, now, on a problem that may not manifest, in undeniable and serious ways, for years to come.

But what about Hurricane Katrina, you may ask? Didn’t that prove global warming is problematic? Didn’t the entire scientific community agree that the degree of devastation left in her wake was attributable, at least in part, to global warming? Well, actually, no.

If you visit the web site for the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, you will see a collection of quotes from scientists debunking the idea that Hurricane Katrina was the result of global warming. But notice the phraseology. Even here they are not saying the intensity of the storm was unaffected by global warming; they are simply saying they can’t prove that the storm was more intense as a result of global warming — nobody can:

“. . . attribution of the 30-year trends [in hurricane intensity] to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state.”

This is the essence of the current debate between those who insist global warming is already affecting our planet in adverse ways and those who insist on pointing out that we if can’t prove it, we shouldn’t legislate the pollutants that we believe cause it. If we continue to go back and forth regarding how much we know, or can’t know, or merely suppose, we will argue indefinitely and never really get to the heart of the problem; which is that we simply don’t have the renewable, clean energy technology we need to sustain our current usage. Or do we?

According to Mark Jaccard, author of Sustainable Fossil Fuels: The Unusual Suspect in the Quest for Clean and Enduring Energy, we should stop insisting on eliminating fossil fuels as a way of saving the environment and instead focus on modifying our fossil fuel use. Jaccard believes we have the technological capability to use fossil fuels without emitting climate-threatening greenhouse gases or other pollutants. In fact, several well-respected scientists have reviewed his book and agree with him.

Among them is Professor John Weyant, from the Department of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford University:

Mark Jaccard skillfully makes the case that those who leave modifying the way we use fossil fuels out of any plan to achieve ‘sustainability’ in our energy systems surely confuse means with ends. If our objectives are to improve energy security and protect the environment at reasonable cost, he makes clear that, with a little bit of ingenuity and resolve, our extensive fossil fuel resources could well be our best friend rather than our worst enemy.

In fact, NRDC’s Climate Center Director, David Hawkins agrees: “Jaccard makes a strong case that significant fossil fuel use and climate protection can co-exist, without harming economic growth.”

Let’s hope he’s right.

But not if you’re talking about the Antarctic “Larsen-B” ice shelf that disintegrated in 35 days in 2002. The Larsen-B ice shelf had been a stable mass of mostly solid ice for at least 10,000 years. Pure and untouched except by the Weddell Seals, which are the only mammals that are known to live there year-round.

Weddell Seals keep breathing holes open in the ice all through the winter by chipping away at the ice with their tusks. Suspicious.

Larsen-B had been around since the last ice age 10,000 years ago.

Let’s put the size of this ice shelf into perspective: 656 feet thick and 1,254.83 square miles—for 10,000 years. The equivalent of 1,200 square miles is 770,000 acres, which would be the White Mountains National Park in New Hampshire.

For an urban comparison, the depth of Larsen-B would be like turning Atlanta onto its side. The surface area would be approximately three times the City of Los Angeles. In other words, the size of Rhode Island.

The demise of Larsen-B was most likely caused by long-term thinning underneath the ice shelf as well as short-term surface melting due to global warming. The surface-melting rate has drastically increased over the last few decades.

This rate is accelerated by the billions of people on the planet and their activities. Some claim that this activity is disproportionately American. Could be.

It sure wasn’t the Weddell Seals.

Antarctic temperatures have increased more than 50º F in the last 25 years. The worldwide temperature change has been 35-38º F during the whole post-glacial period.

Does the disintegration of Larsen-B mean that there is a rise in the sea level? Indirectly, yes. The glaciers that were previously “land bound” by Larsen-B have now surged forward, lowering their surfaces. These lower elevations have warmer temperatures, which cause the glaciers to melt into the sea. More loss of ice equals a larger impact on sea level.

To add to this cataclysm is the fact that with increased energy in the atmosphere (global warming), there is a profound increase in storms. Sound like anything we’ve been witnessing lately? These storm surges (with increased water levels) have dramatic effects on low-lying areas, which in turn affects our infrastructures and the precautionary measures we must take to protect from flooding.

The problems this causes for our world are numerous—BUT—there have been some fascinating discoveries of the deep ocean floor under the area that the ice shelf inhabited for so many years.

“How on earth can there be ANY saving grace to this mess?” you ask. I would hardly call it the “upside” to the loss of Larsen-B, but scientists have documented studies of the seabed where the ice shelf sat for 10,000 years. That is such a long time I can’t even get my mind completely around it.

An underwater video study examining a deep glacial trough in the Weddell Sea, where the Larsen-B ice shelf collapsed, has revealed a sunless habitat on the seabed below the near-freezing Antarctic waters. This enormous community of bacteria living on the ocean floor for millennia means that the chances are great for life existence in other places of our galaxy. These bacteria have been growing at a depth of 2,800 feet beneath the surface of the ice.

Weddell Seals are known to dive to over 2000 feet and stay submerged for over an hour. If they know about what is going on down there, they haven’t told us, but it would be a good application for a cold-water crittercam.

The “new” ecosystem that is open to research covers an area of nearly 580,000 square miles of sea floor or, for comparison sake, the entire Sahara Desert. Researchers believe that the energy source for this life is provided by methane from deep underwater vents. Earth’s energy is fed by photosynthesis from the planet’s surface, whereas this seabed ecosystem is a cold-vent community, fed by the chemical energy within the earth. This opportune research is to be continued in early 2006.

It’s another case of the good, bad, and the ugly. A catastrophic event has implications that will greatly impact life as we know it, yet uncover prospective findings for our future as well. Which way does this scale tip in your opinion?

Jan Blair

Remember the 2004 movie, The Day After Tomorrow? It was the blockbuster hit about a climatologist trying to figure out a way to save the world from abrupt global warming. Larsen-B was the subject of this climate-change film, which was based on the novel, The Coming Global Superstorm, by Art Bell and Whitley Strieber. If you haven’t seen the film, you might want to think about downloadingrenting it.

It’s an eye-opener. Like most popular movies it was criticized by many people who sat still through the whole thing, quite a few folks who couldn’t, and everyone else who didn’t see the movie.

sources
Science Daily Magazine
Variety

These are lakes fed by glaciers at the southern tip of the South American landmass, in Patagonia. The bright blue light reflects nicely off the pure waters of Lago San Martin. Other parts of the terrain are covered in snowpack. We’re a little too close for good resolution, unfortunately. Glaciers once covered this entire area before yielding the valley to meltwater. The glaciers are melting.

Bringing along a portable icemaker won’t help you.

If you’ve been convinced by the gazillions of dollars that the oil industry has paid to portray global warming in the media as a "debate", then you should pay serious attention. Among scientists, the debate ended a long time ago.

In the Patagonia region of Argentina, Los Glaciares National Park is home to some of the most spectacular scenery in the world. The glaciers are getting smaller, though. And not in geological time. "As fast as a glacier" is an oxymoron but if you want to see these glaciers you’d better make your travel plans before your Expedia session times out again.

What is interesting about these photos is not where the glaciers are, but where they were. It’s easy to spot the huge swath of dry ground formerly covered in a frozen river of ice a hundred miles long.

Lago San Martin from ground level: