A new record minimum for arctic sea ice

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:07 PM GMT on November 18, 2009

Share this Blog
4
+

Arctic sea ice reached a new record minimum during the first half of November, according to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (Figure 1). The record low ice extent this month is the first extended period of record minimum arctic sea ice since 2007. The new record minimum suggests that the gains in ice seen over the past two years were probably a temporary fluctuation due to normal year-to-year variability in the weather, and that the long-term arctic sea ice decline observed since the 1970s is continuing.


Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent up to November 16, 2009, compared to the record low year of 2007 and the average from 1979 - 2000. Sea ice extent over the past ten days has fallen below the record minimum observed in 2007. Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center.

What caused the new record low?
The record low was due to very warm air invading the Arctic during October, in combination with the unusually warm ocean temperatures that have prevailed in the region over the past few decades. The warm air temperatures were primarily the result of an intense series of low pressure systems in the Arctic Ocean, north of Siberia, that worked in concert with a very strong high pressure system north of Alaska to drive warm air from Central Asia poleward over the past six weeks. The strong storms and unusual pressure pattern brought winds of about 5 mph above average to large regions of the Arctic Ocean, which helped break up existing ice and kept ice from freezing as much as usual. With all that warm air flowing into the Arctic, the cold air that was there had to go somewhere else, and that "somewhere else" was North America. The U.S. recorded its 3rd coldest October on record in 2009, thanks to cold air flowing out of the Arctic. The temperature and sea level pressure patterns over the Northern Hemisphere for October (Figure 2) were highly anomalous, with temperatures up to 27°F (15°C) above average over the Arctic Ocean, and sea level pressures up to 11 mb above average. The atmospheric circulation pattern has shifted over the past two weeks, with the result that warm air from Central Asia is no longer being pumped into the Arctic so vigorously, nor is cold air from the Arctic streaming southward into North America. As a result, temperature anomalies in the Arctic are beginning to decline, and sea ice extent later this month will probably rise above the record minimums observed in 2007.



Figure 2. Departure of surface air temperature and surface pressure from average for October 2009. Surface temperatures in the Arctic were up to 27°F (15°C) above average over the Arctic Ocean, due to sea ice loss. The strongest anomalies occurred where sea ice was missing from its usual position, though the entire Arctic was affected. The clockwise flow of air around the anomalously strong high pressure system north of Alaska (labeled "H" in the right-hand image) helped drive a flow of very warm air from Central Asia into the Arctic, and a very cold flow of air out of the Arctic southward into North America. Image credit: NOAA/ESRL.

How will the November sea ice loss affect next summer's sea ice loss?
A record 19% of the Arctic sea ice cover this summer in the Arctic was over 2 years old, far below the 1981 - 2000 average of 52%. In the summer of 2009, NASA researcher Ron Kwok and colleagues from the University of Washington in Seattle published satellite data showing that mean winter arctic ice thickness declined by 48% between 1980 and 2008. The loss accelerated over the past five years, with the ice losing 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) of thickness between 2004 and 2008, finishing at 6.2 feet thick. This remarkable thinning was confirmed in May 2009 by the Catlin Arctic Survey, a 9-week, 435 km expedition across the Canadian Arctic led by polar scientist Professor Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge. Wadhams' expedition found that most of the route had first year ice just 5.9 feet (1.8 meters) thick. With El Niño conditions crossing from the moderate to strong category over the past two weeks in the Eastern Pacific, the prospects for a much warmer than usual winter in the Arctic have increased, likely setting the stage for continued record or near-record minimum sea ice extent and thickness into next spring. The arctic sea ice will be very vulnerable to a new record minimum next summer if warmer than average temperatures are seen over the Arctic.

Sea ice loss causes stronger storms in the Arctic
The stronger storms over the Arctic Ocean this fall were due, in part, to the loss of sea ice. In a 2009 article titled, Extraordinary September Arctic sea ice reductions and their relationships with storm behavior over 1979-2008, Simmonds and Keay found that September storms over the East Arctic intensified by about 1 mb over the past 30 years and had grown about 50 miles larger in diameter, thanks to all the extra heat energy supplied by more open water due to recent losses in Arctic sea ice. These stronger storms may create a positive feedback loop that will lead to even more sea ice loss: reduced sea ice drives stronger storms, whose winds break up sea ice, creating even more warm water to feed stronger storms with stronger winds, and so on. Now that the arctic sea ice is 48% thinner than 30 years ago, this effect will increase in importance, since thinner ice breaks up more readily in strong winds.

Expect an ice-free Arctic by 2030
In a press release put out by the Catlin Arctic Survey, Professor Wadhams said, "The Catlin Arctic Survey data supports the new consensus view--based on seasonal variation of ice extent and thickness, changes in temperatures, winds and especially ice composition--that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer within about 20 years, and that much of the decrease will be happening within 10 years". In their 2009 report on this year's Arctic sea ice minimum, National Snow and Ice Data Center Director and Senior Scientist Dr. Mark Serreze said, "It's nice to see a little recovery over the past couple years, but there's no reason to think that we're headed back to conditions seen back in the 1970s. We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades". At the December 2008 American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting, the world's largest climate change conference, sea ice expert Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski of the Navy Postgraduate School blamed 60% of the melting during the past decade on heat brought in by ocean currents, and projected that summertime arctic sea ice would completely disappear by 2016. Dr. Jim Overland of NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory was more conservative, projecting a 2030 demise of arctic sea ice. He thought we would be "hanging around where we are for a while", and thought it would take two more unusual summers like the "perfect storm" of 2007 to push the system to an ice-free state.

The consequences
There were 88 presentations on arctic sea ice at the 2008 AGU conference. None of the presenters expressed the view that the current long-term decline in arctic sea ice was almost entirely natural, or that we can expect the decline to reverse this century. Sea ice experts do blame part of the decline on natural variability in the weather, but we wouldn't be where we are now without the warming caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. One view (Stroeve et al., 2007) is that human-emitted greenhouse gases are responsible for 47 - 57% of the arctic sea ice loss since 1979. Heat-absorbing black soot from fires and pollution settling on the white ice is thought to also be a significant contributor.

The consensus I heard at the AGU conference among arctic sea ice experts was that the summertime sea ice will be gone by 2030. If they are correct, we can expect a period of significantly accelerated global climate change to begin 10 - 20 years from now. Arctic sea ice is one of the critical components maintaining the stability of our current climate. Once the the ice is gone, the climate will become unstable, with highly unpredictable results. It is true that Earth's past has many examples of warmer climates that evolved due to natural causes where life flourished, and we shouldn't fear the new, stable climate we will eventually arrive at centuries from now. However, life on Earth is adapted to the current climate. The changes that will occur during the transition will be extremely disruptive to Earth's ecosystems and the humans that rely on them for life. If one were to rate the destructive capability of climate change the way we rate hurricanes, I would rate current climate change at the "Invest" or "tropical disturbance" stage--the climate change storm is just beginning to organize. But the coming climate change storm is destined to hit our children with the full fury of intensifying hurricane.

References
Kwok, R., and D. A. Rothrock. 2009, "Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESat records: 1958-2008", Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L15501, doi:10.1029/2009GL039035

Simmonds, I., and K. Keay (2009), Extraordinary September Arctic sea ice reductions and their relationships with storm behavior over 1979.2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19715, doi:10.1029/2009GL039810.

Stroeve, J., M.M. Holland, W. Meier, T. Scambos, and M. Serreze, Arctic sea ice decline:Faster than forecast", GRL 34 L09501, doi:1029/2007GL029703, 2007.

The road to Copenhagen
By some accounts, the future of the world will be at stake this December, when the crucial U.N. Climate Change Conference will be held December 7 - 18 in Copenhagen, Denmark. At that meeting, the leaders of the world will gather to negotiate an agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The new agreement will be the world's road map for dealing with climate change, and the stakes are huge. Dr. Ricky Rood, author of Wunderground's climate change blog, will be there, and Wunderground has given the University of Michigan a grant to send a student who will also blog for us. I have a number of posts I'm planning in the run-up to Copenhagen, including:

- Impact of arctic sea ice loss on Northern Hemisphere winter weather
- The Manufactured Doubt industry
- What global warming skeptics say about arctic sea ice
- Is higher CO2 more beneficial for Earth's ecosystems?

I'll also have an end-of-hurricane season summary on November 30, plus posts on whatever breaking weather stories occur. My next post will be Friday, when I plan to summarize the global weather last month, which was the 2nd - 6th warmest October on record.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 335 - 285

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15Blog Index

Quoting PcolaDan:


Rin Tin Tin was better. :)


Hey, Andy Devine from Andy's Gang was the sargeant on Rin Tin Tin, or did old age make you forget that?. lolol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KimberlyB:

As much as I agree with that statement, I don't even know if that's possible. It all boils down to money and the folks with the money could care less what this world is like when their gone. They care about what the money can do for them today.

I believe it's very likely going to take something of an epic and globally catastrophic nature before any real initiative is put into place. Unfortunately.


Unfortunatly, Kimberly, as T.S. Eliot put it so eloquently,

"This is the way the world ends; Not with a bang but a whimper."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
333. Inyo
Quoting pearlandaggie:
322. regardless, i'm glad we had the conversation. seems like good, old-fashioned conversation is so lacking these days :)


I agree. When I was younger, I just used to want to argue with 'republicans' but these days I am coming to realize that if you sit down with someone you disagree with but who is reasonably informed, and drink a beer or two (or whatever beverage of your choice), you will probably agree on more than you disagree on, when it comes down to it. Thanks for a good conversation!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Grothar:


Andy's Gang, Sky King, Fury, Lassie, you want to go on??? lol


Rin Tin Tin was better. :)
Member Since: August 22, 2008 Posts: 12 Comments: 6010
331. Inyo
as far as peer-reviewed research, why is there so little funding for scientists not friendly to the AGW hypothesis? i think we should be working to honestly disprove the hypothesis before we embark on the proposed, very costly 'solutions'. then, if we can't disprove the hypothesis or end up proving the hypothesis, we know what we have to do and the integrity of science is maintained.

I agree that good science on this subject should be funded contingent on the quality of the work, not on the opinions or politics of the scientists. However, I also think that some of the 'anti-crowd' are still just beating the same dead horse, for instance, would you support a scientist trying to prove that the world is flat? I am against media dissemination of inaccuracies and cherry-picked statistics of any sort, but actual science and research related to climate is important across the board. Furthermore, scientific debates have to occur without political influence.

My impression from spending time with scientists studying these things is that almost all of them are convinced that while climate change is not well understood, there is enough evidence for CO2 warming that it justifies action. Certainly there is not a full consensus, but considering scientists (a very stubborn, opinionated, and raucous group), the 'consensus' on this is much higher than it is for most scientific debates.

And maybe this is just my liberal bias but i don't see changing energy types as being a costly, energy-wrecking solution. Increased funding in good science strengthens the economy, and improving our energy infastructure will need to be done at some point anyway. I am not 100% sure I think 'cap and trade' is the best solution, but we need SOMETHING!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
328. unfortunately, that's true. people don't like to bite the hand that feeds them, even if it means they have to obfuscate to avoid doing so. furthermore, when the government is doing the funding, it's hard to keep politics from interfering with science.
Member Since: September 14, 2007 Posts: 3 Comments: 3963
322. regardless, i'm glad we had the conversation. seems like good, old-fashioned conversation is so lacking these days :)
Member Since: September 14, 2007 Posts: 3 Comments: 3963
Quoting Inyo: Again, we need unbiased, good research about past climate changes to do this... and this research is frequently attacked and funding cut.

As much as I agree with that statement, I don't even know if that's possible. It all boils down to money and the folks with the money could care less what this world is like when their gone. They care about what the money can do for them today.

I believe it's very likely going to take something of an epic and globally catastrophic nature before any real initiative is put into place. Unfortunately.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PcolaDan:


Duck and cover, Plop Plop Fizz Fizz, Princess Summerfallwinterspring, Heckle and Jeckle (sp?), HO HO HO Green Giant, etc.


Andy's Gang, Sky King, Fury, Lassie, you want to go on??? lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Grothar:


You were alive during the 50's?????


Duck and cover, Plop Plop Fizz Fizz, Princess Summerfallwinterspring, Heckle and Jeckle (sp?), HO HO HO Green Giant, etc.
Member Since: August 22, 2008 Posts: 12 Comments: 6010
Quoting Inyo:
trust me...i understand nothing that is said or done will change your mind. however, you might want to reconsider that as people like me are only asking for a real, honest scientific inquiry into the situation before we all jump off of the cliff like lemmings. if someone like me who used to believe in AGW does some research and finds enough gaping holes in the hypothesis to change his mind, shouldn't you be willing to do the same? i'm not even saying i won't change my mind...only that the data and analysis show thusfar are far from conclusive.

I don't think it is fair to say 'nothing will change my mind' when you don't even know me. I am in fact a scientist of sorts (or naturalist) and if I don't adapt to new data and accept changes in my views, i would be pretty crappy at what I do. If it was proved tomorrow that AGW was not going to happen, I'd be ecstatic! I am not a climate scientist but I do follow this stuff closely, and aside from right-wing blogs I haven't seen much if any actual peer-reviewed science indicating that we are NOT warming the planet.


fair enough...that wasn't a personal attack, but rather a supposition on my part. for that, i apologize.

as far as peer-reviewed research, why is there so little funding for scientists not friendly to the AGW hypothesis? i think we should be working to honestly disprove the hypothesis before we embark on the proposed, very costly 'solutions'. then, if we can't disprove the hypothesis or end up proving the hypothesis, we know what we have to do and the integrity of science is maintained. it used to be that the null hypothesis was that an idea was false until proven otherwise...seems like that's not the case anymore.
Member Since: September 14, 2007 Posts: 3 Comments: 3963
Quoting the boss lady "FrankenFlood" LMAO...HARD...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hey Flood. I don't know if you remember seeing me around at all because I've been gone for a couple months with computer problems, but I've seen you. lol And I just wanted to wish you the best of luck and I'll send a couple prayers up for ya. Who the heck knows if they work, but it's worth a shot.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
322. Inyo
Quoting pearlandaggie:


not picking, but politics should be shunned from the discussion. politics will derail any chance of the truth being discovered.


ok, valid point, 'attacking' comes from politicians of all sorts, not just republicans.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
321. Inyo
trust me...i understand nothing that is said or done will change your mind. however, you might want to reconsider that as people like me are only asking for a real, honest scientific inquiry into the situation before we all jump off of the cliff like lemmings. if someone like me who used to believe in AGW does some research and finds enough gaping holes in the hypothesis to change his mind, shouldn't you be willing to do the same? i'm not even saying i won't change my mind...only that the data and analysis show thusfar are far from conclusive.

I don't think it is fair to say 'nothing will change my mind' when you don't even know me. I am in fact a scientist of sorts (or naturalist) and if I don't adapt to new data and accept changes in my views, i would be pretty crappy at what I do. If it was proved tomorrow that AGW was not going to happen, I'd be ecstatic! I am not a climate scientist but I do follow this stuff closely, and aside from right-wing blogs I haven't seen much if any actual peer-reviewed science indicating that we are NOT warming the planet.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Inyo:
"
- but this is hard when some Republicans attack when we even try to talk about this


not picking, but politics should be shunned from the discussion. politics will derail any chance of the truth being discovered.
Member Since: September 14, 2007 Posts: 3 Comments: 3963
Quoting Grothar:


It's Ok Pcola knows how old I am.


Grothar!!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
318. Inyo
"
i would even go as far as to say that if the scientific process could prove or even nearly prove the hypothesis, i would be willing to reconsider my position."

I feel like the outcome if it is true is negative enough that we should take action even if it is "possible but not likely" that this problem will happen.

"

well, when you trade dense forms of energy generation (like coal, nuclear, natural gas) for diffuse ones like solar or wind, the cost will go up significantly and the environmental footprint will be many, many times larger. if we were seriously considering increasing our nuclear power generation capacity, say 5x, then we would have something to work towards."

I agree, a hasty rush towards solar and wind without thinking this out could cause all kinds of environmental damage, including ruining huge tracts of desert for no reason. Panic doesn't help anyone and we need well reasoned solutions - but this is hard when some Republicans attack when we even try to talk about this, leading to constant defensiveness and lack of dialog. As for nuclear, it clearly is a technology we need to look into more fully, especially if we can develop new methods that produce much less waste.

if we can't avoid the changes now, wouldn't the effort be better spent finding ways to adapt to a warmer climate instead of a futile attempt to back to the old one?

If this is indeed happening like we think it is, then significant warming is going to happen no matter what. So yes, we need to look at ways of adapting to the warmer climate. If the climate change is natural, we will also have to adapt to it. Again, we need unbiased, good research about past climate changes to do this... and this research is frequently attacked and funding cut.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
314. trust me...i understand nothing that is said or done will change your mind. however, you might want to reconsider that as people like me are only asking for a real, honest scientific inquiry into the situation before we all jump off of the cliff like lemmings. if someone like me who used to believe in AGW does some research and finds enough gaping holes in the hypothesis to change his mind, shouldn't you be willing to do the same? i'm not even saying i won't change my mind back...only that the data and analysis shown thusfar are far from conclusive and warrant much more open and honest investigation.
Member Since: September 14, 2007 Posts: 3 Comments: 3963
312. if we can't avoid the changes now, wouldn't the effort be better spent finding ways to adapt to a warmer climate instead of a futile attempt to back to the old one?
Member Since: September 14, 2007 Posts: 3 Comments: 3963
Quoting Inyo:


Secondly, I find it hard to believe that the money spent on climate change would be spent on feeding people or supplying them with water


this is true...but we won't have the option if we chase the ghost, so-to-speak.

i would even go as far as to say that if the scientific process could prove or even nearly prove the hypothesis, i would be willing to reconsider my position. however, there is too much uncertainty in the data gathering, analysis, and adjustment phases to ascertain whether the conclusion is real or an artifact of data processing or a political agenda.

Quoting Inyo:


I don't understand why everyone thinks changing energy sources will cause America to collapse or something.


well, when you trade dense forms of energy generation (like coal, nuclear, natural gas) for diffuse ones like solar or wind, the cost will go up significantly and the environmental footprint will be many, many times larger. if we were seriously considering increasing our nuclear power generation capacity, say 5x, then we would have something to work towards.
Member Since: September 14, 2007 Posts: 3 Comments: 3963
314. Inyo
if you think your friend's house is on fire, will you call them and wake them up, even if it is 3 AM and they will be pissed if there isn't a fire and you woke them up? If there was a 10% chance of your friend dying in a fire if you didn't call them, and a 90% chance of a false alarm, would you do it? I would!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
so basically the troughs that come down are what we need to watch. Interesting question, during the movement of Ida, did she at any point in time "tap" into the edie that was located in the Yucatan Channel. I know being a vort-cane that she was elongated in nature. However did that elongation keep her from using the warmth from the edie or not?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
312. Inyo
some birds definitely foul their nests... but humans are certainly the worst in this regard. In any event, everyone agrees that filthy air and water is bad, some people also feel that too much CO2 is bad... but most of the technologies that create the other pollution are fossil fuel related. I just don't feel like we have the luxury of doing 30 more years of research, especially since the ice may all be melted off by then, which will cause all kinds of climate effects. (though it is probably too late to stop that, anyway)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Old Days?

Like back when I joined?

When there were a grand total of thirty-six of us?

And we had no computers then, either. Had to mail each other our posts.

In an envelope. With a ten cent stamp.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
310. Inyo
Quoting pearlandaggie:
295. what if we come to find out this was all predicated on bad data/assumptions and a political agenda? i'm fully willing to take my share of the responsibility in the event i'm wrong despite sticking to scientific principles and striving for data accuracy and honest analysis. are you willing to accept your share of the blame for the potential waste of trillions of dollars chasing a problem that may not exist or whose cause may be mostly or totally natural when those funds could be used to feed people or supply clean drinking water?


well, first of all I agree that good, unbiased science is very much necessary. Scientists on all sides of this issue should be able to present data and hypotheses without fear of losing funding/their job. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that the money spent on climate change would be spent on feeding people or supplying them with water - especially since many of the same people who are anti-global-warming-action are anti- other 'government handouts' that help the poor. Trillions of dollars are already wasted by the government (both parties) and it is certainly a problem, but I don't feel like working on switching our energy type will completely destroy the economy. Did it ruin our economy when everyone switched from horses to cars? I don't understand why everyone thinks changing energy sources will cause America to collapse or something.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
308. well, smog, litter, water pollution and the like are one thing....to divert the money that could be used to address those things on an unproven hypothesis, and a shaky one at that, is just as disgusting.
Member Since: September 14, 2007 Posts: 3 Comments: 3963
304, my Grandfather used to say, in disgust, "man is the only animal to foul its own nest".
We should clean-up our act, regardless.........
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24390
Quoting pottery:
288, Grothar.
There are a couple of us here, from the Old Days. So have some respect. We are considered er, um, Esteemed.


It's Ok Pcola knows how old I am.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Okay, I am truly out now, before it gets ugly in here...play nice, if you can!
Member Since: August 2, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 9922
295

Well said, and something Ive been thinking for a while...
Member Since: August 2, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 9922
295. what if we come to find out this was all predicated on bad data/assumptions and a political agenda? i'm fully willing to take my share of the responsibility in the event i'm wrong despite sticking to scientific principles and striving for data accuracy and honest analysis. are you willing to accept your share of the blame for the potential waste of trillions of dollars chasing a problem that may not exist or whose cause may be mostly or totally natural when those funds could be used to feed people or supply clean drinking water, medicines or housing?
Member Since: September 14, 2007 Posts: 3 Comments: 3963
Laters, Floods.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24390
Quoting plywoodstatenative:
I know that a few of the models were hinting at development, what are they getting that information off of then? Cause I see nothing except maybe a system crossing from the Pacific into the BOC or C America region.


Cutofrfs, I think...I saw that earlier
Member Since: August 2, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 9922
I know that a few of the models were hinting at development, what are they getting that information off of then? Cause I see nothing except maybe a system crossing from the Pacific into the BOC or C America region.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
295. My point exactly. And well put by you.

(ok, this blog is about to get 'serious' again)
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24390
Quoting Floodman:


Yes, my dear, and happily so! I find that most of the people here iare of the same mind when it comes ot...well, you know...LOL

Well folks,I'm going to get out of here for a little while; I have to finish a little work from home so I'll be back in after a while...


Taxi!!

See y'all in a while... :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:
288, Grothar.
There are a couple of us here, from the Old Days. So have some respect. We are considered er, um, Esteemed.


Don't forget Venerable...or even Venerated!
Member Since: August 2, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 9922
297. Inyo
and if climate concerns, national security concerns, AND long term economic concerns support reducing our use of fossil fuels, why would anyone, other than an oil company executive, be opposed to working towards that goal?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting jpritch:
251. I think we will begin to see a shift now that the military has embraced its new energy policy as a matter of national security.

The majority of combat deaths happen either transporting fuel or protecting fuel transport routes, and we are increasingly involved in conflicts in order - at least in part - to protect our access to oil. The environmental issues weren't even needed to convince the pentagon. And besides, they kinda like the idea of hybrid tanks that can operate in stealth EV mode. ;)

Research and development for military needs is very likely to spur further advances in quite a variety of green technologies as well. My hope is that the new military policy will begin to change the attitudes of people who currently do not see climate change as a compelling reason to change the ways we produce and use energy.


Any help we can get jp is gratefully accepted
Member Since: August 2, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 9922
295. Inyo
here is my question to global warming doubters: what if you are wrong? If the "global warming believers" are wrong, we will look pretty dumb in 30 years when it is obvious that we were wrong. However, if we are right, and the doubters are wrong, which is what I think is happening, no amount of apology will take back your efforts to stop us from solving this problem, and the responsibility will be over your heads. Hopefully you are OK with that because no one is going to forget which parties and entities were trying to deny that the problem existed.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
288, Grothar.
There are a couple of us here, from the Old Days. So have some respect. We are considered er, um, Esteemed.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24390
Good night all. I hope the little disturbance in the GOM will not bring more rain for the W/E. I have plans.
Member Since: September 11, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 263
LOL...Hurricanenewbie is crazy...LOL
Member Since: August 2, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 9922
286. i hope military necessity does drive innovation. and, in actuality, i don't see AGW as a compelling reason to change the way we produce and use energy...however, national security and energy independence are more compelling, IMHO.
Member Since: September 14, 2007 Posts: 3 Comments: 3963
Quoting pearlandaggie:
283. can you even say "Butch Wax" on this blog? LMAO :)

ODG. Now I will never get that image out of my head
Member Since: September 11, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 263
283. can you even say "Butch Wax" on this blog? LMAO :)
Member Since: September 14, 2007 Posts: 3 Comments: 3963
Quoting PcolaDan:


Brylcreem didn't even work for me when I HAD hair!!! (nor Butch Wax)


You were alive during the 50's?????
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Just say. Know?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
251. I think we will begin to see a shift now that the military has embraced its new energy policy as a matter of national security.

The majority of combat deaths happen either transporting fuel or protecting fuel transport routes, and we are increasingly involved in conflicts in order - at least in part - to protect our access to oil. The environmental issues weren't even needed to convince the pentagon. And besides, they kinda like the idea of hybrid tanks that can operate in stealth EV mode. ;)

Research and development for military needs is very likely to spur further advances in quite a variety of green technologies as well. My hope is that the new military policy will begin to change the attitudes of people who currently do not see climate change as a compelling reason to change the ways we produce and use energy.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Does hair loss cause GW? More heat escapes from my head now.
Member Since: September 11, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 263

Viewing: 335 - 285

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.