Arctic: Ice-Free by 2013

The passage of time has not been kind to the Arctic's fortunes: Where scientists once predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by the end of the century, they revised their estimates in recent months to 2030 and now - stunningly - to 2013. Presenting the findings of his modeling studies at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, Wieslaw Maslowski, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, explained that earlier projections had low-balled the real values by not accounting for some of the processes driving the ice loss.

Even worse, he conceded that his own estimates may be on the optimistic side, explaining that the models he had run - using data from 1979 to 2004 - did not take into account the ice cover minima reached in 2005 and 2007. "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007. So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative." said Maslowski.

Maslow believes earlier estimates missed out on some key melting processes; those issues could be partially resolved if future models incorporated more realistic representations of warm water movement into the Arctic from the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University remarked that past models did not sufficiently take into account the ice-albedo feedback effect, which occurs when water is heated by solar radiation, leading to more warming and melting.

Mark Serreze, a scientist with the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), still believes 2030 is a reasonable estimate, deeming Wieslaw's projections as "a little aggressive . . . simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you've had in previous years." Either way, the melting of the Arctic ice cap within our lifetimes now seems inevitable
More from treehugger, http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/12/arctic_icefree.php

Getting to know our planet

From the David Suzuki Foundation

We know that our planet is heating up. And we know that international climate negotiations like the ones that are winding down in Bali this week are critical steps towards a global action plan to reduce heat-trapping greenhouse gases. But how will we be able to gauge if such a plan actually works?

In spite of all we have learned about our climate and our planet's natural systems over the past two decades, relatively big holes exist in our capacity to monitor where exactly global greenhouse gases are coming from and where they are going. That's going to have to change in the coming years, because we can no longer afford to leave such important measures to guesswork.

It may be hard for many of us to remember a time when global information was not readily available at our fingertips, but the amazing ability to access such vast amounts of data is a relatively recent phenomenon. Today, with supercomputers and the internet, we can now share, combine, calculate and analyze information like never before. For a simple example, think about the software program Google Earth. The capacity for anyone with a computer to see the entire planet in one instance, and then zoom down to view a close-up of virtually anywhere on the globe is simply astounding.

Still, even with all this data available, we need much more. The earth is incredibly complex. To be able to understand how it works, even in a basic sense, requires vast amounts of information to be acquired and monitored over time. Living sustainably within the planet's limits will require that we really get to know Earth in the most intimate of details.

Recently, a special edition of the journal Nature looked at this issue and how well we are doing in monitoring the planet. The results are mixed. Huge strides forward have been achieved in some areas, while others limp along with sporadic funding or political changes that may stop projects entirely.

One of the most obvious measurements that must be tracked over time is the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As the principle greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is a key mechanism in global warming. But critical questions remain. Half of the carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere gets soaked up again. Where it goes is the subject of much debate. Some say the oceans; others say soils or plants. The reality is, we don't know for sure.

Two satellites, to be launched in the next year should help us get a better understanding of what's going on. One, called the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, will circle the earth measuring carbon dioxide levels a half-million times every day. This information will be combined with models of how our atmosphere circulates to give us a better understanding of how the earth absorbs carbon dioxide. Another project is called the Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite. It will measure carbon dioxide as well, but also other important greenhouse gases such as methane, ozone and water vapour.

Many other projects are also planned or are underway that will measure variables such as ice cover, soil moisture, urban growth and desertification, wind speeds, ocean temperatures, phytoplankton growth and many more. Yet for every planned project, there are budget shortfalls, delays, political interference, international overlaps and duplications that can result in critical gaps in data. This can be a serious problem.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other human impacts on the planet is of course a vital task. But measuring and accounting for these changes is just as important. It's the only way we'll ever know if what we're doing is having an effect. Accumulating basic data sets about the planet over long periods of time may be the scientific equivalent of watching paint dry, but it is absolutely essential work for us to understand and protect our complicated little world.
Take David Suzuki's Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

EU threatens to boycott US climate talks

Just a bit I found from AP.

By CHRIS BRUMMITT, Associated Press Writer
Thu Dec 13, 6:43 AM ET

European nations on Thursday threatened to boycott U.S.-led climate talks next month unless Washington accepts a range of numbers for negotiating deep reductions of global-warming emissions at a U.N. conference here.
The move raised the stakes as delegates from nearly 190 nations entered final-hour talks on Bali aimed at launching negotiations for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.
The United States, Japan and several other governments refuse to accept language in a draft document suggesting that industrialized nations consider cutting emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent by 2020, saying specific targets would limit the scope of future talks.
The European Union and others say the figures reflect the measures scientists say are needed to rein in global warming and head off predictions of rising sea levels, worsening floods and droughts, and the extinction of plant and animal species.
"No result in Bali means no Major Economies Meeting," said Sigmar Gabriel, top EU environment official from Germany, referring to a series of separate climate talks initiated by President Bush in September. "This is the clear position of the EU. I do not know what we should talk about if there is no target."
The U.S. invited 16 other major economies, including European countries, Japan, China and India, to discuss a program of what are expected to be nationally determined, voluntary cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Bush administration views the major economies process as the main vehicle for determining future steps by the U.S. — and it hopes by others — to slow emissions. But environmentalists accuse the U.S. of trying to undermine the U.N. process.
The talks in Bali are scheduled to wrap up Friday.
U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer said he was worried the U.S.-EU deadlock could derail the process and that a final "Bali roadmap" would contain an agreement to negotiate a new climate deal by 2009, but may not include specific targets for emission reductions.
"I'm very concerned about the pace of things," he said. "If we don't get wording on the future, then the whole house of cards falls to pieces."
The United States delegation said while it continues to reject inclusion of specific emission cut targets, it hopes eventually to reach an agreement that is "environmentally effective" and "economically sustainable."
But haggling over numbers now was counterproductive, said Jim Connaughton, the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
The United States is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the only major industrial country to have rejected Kyoto, which expires in 2012. It has been on the defensive since the conference kicked off on Dec. 3.
Pressure has come even from a one-time ally on climate, Australia, whose new prime minister urged Washington to "embrace" binding targets, and from former Vice President Al Gore, who won this year's Nobel Peace Prize for helping alert the world to the danger of climate change.
But U.S. Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky, the head of the American delegation, told reporters that the conference was simply the start of negotiations, not the end.
"We don't have to resolve all these issues ... here in Bali," she said.
That did not satisfy environmentalists, who accused Washington of standing in the way of a meaningful deal — and not just on the inclusion of emissions targets.
In the end, however, all parties agree it is vital that the U.S. is on board.
"Everyone wants the United States in so badly that they will be willing to accept some level of ambiguity in the negotiations," said Greenpeace energy expert John Coequyt. "Our worry is that we will end up with a deal that is unacceptable from an environmental perspective."
The Kyoto Protocol requires 37 industrial nations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by a relatively modest average 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
Bush has argued that the pact would harm the U.S. economy and cutbacks should have been imposed on poorer but fast-developing nations such as China and India.

Bamboo Clothing

In short, bamboo fiber is a naturally functional textile that is environmentally friendly, ultra soft, breathable, anti-bacterial, anti-fungal and anti-static.
Bamboo thrives naturally without the use of pesticides & is a renewable resource. It regenerates naturally and the bamboo plant is 100% biodegradable.
Bamboo fiber has tiny micro-gaps and micro-holes that make it excellent at moisture absorption and ventilation. This unparalleled microstructure means that bamboo fiber has superior natural wicking capabilities.
"Bamboo kun" is a natural agent found in bamboo fiber that has anti-bacterial properties. Bamboo fiber products repel unwanted smells and stay free from bad odors longer.

http://www.dobamboo.com/index.html

Better Options to De-ice Your Driveway

After reading this, I'm not sure now. http://www.motherearthliving.com/issues/motherearthliving/nature/Better-Options-to-De-ice-Your-Driveway_797-1.html

US, Japan, Canada accused of obstruction at climate conference

The United States, Japan and Canada are putting the brakes on progress in the fight against global warming, observers at a UN climate change conference charged Wednesday. They have tried to curtail ambitious goals and concrete promises in all rounds of negotiations, said Meena Raman, chairwoman of the Friends of the Earth, a coalition of environmental groups.
Read the rest from ECOEGG, http://www.ecoegg.org/shell/2007/12/05/us-japan-canada-accused-of-obstruction-at-climateconference/

Hockey players put global warming on ice

The David Suzuki Foundation is thrilled to announce our partnership with the NHL Players Association. The NHLPA and NHL players are working with us to find out how to reduce the impact of their sport by going carbon neutral. Here's the story, http://www.davidsuzuki.org/NatureChallenge/newsletters/Dec2007_winter/default.asp