Scientific observations of the Arctic have revealed the sea ice last month covered an area two million square kilometres less than the historical average.
To put that in perspective, that’s an area the size of Alaska.
The BBC has reported the latest data presented at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting suggested the ice was no longer showing a robust recovery from the summer melt.
The sea ice reached its minimum extent this year on 14 September, making 2006 the fourth lowest on record in 29 years of satellite record-keeping and just shy of the all time minimum of 2005.
Models created by a team of scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the University of Washington, and McGill University, revealed the ice system could be weakened to such a degree by global warming that it soon accelerates its own decline and may vanish by 2040.
Meanwhile, the likes of ExxonMobil are paying a fortune to front organisations to cast doubt on global warming while politicians argue that there’s plenty of time to work out what to do.
Excuse me, but 2040 is only 34 years away and taking a few years to decide what to do should clearly not be an option - even to political knuckleheads.
Can we stop it at all, if the timescale is so short? Not that we shouldn’t try, but it’s a scary thought.
We can’t stop a reduction in the ice cap, it’s already too late for that. What we can do is act now to dramatically reduce carbon emissions with the aim of stabilising the climate over the next 10 to 15 years.
We will still suffer the very serious consequences of global warming, but we might just be able to stave off a complete environmental collapse.
The big unknown is that we won’t know that massive feedback loops have started until they’re well advanced. In the case of the Arctic, more exposed sea means more heat absorbed, which means more ice melting and less heat reflected, which means more exposed sea and so on.
That’s why I get very annoyed with people who say, “well, maybe there is climate change, but we need time to think about what to do”. Rubbish, we are fast running out of time and need to act now and tomorrow, not wait for another 10 years.
The effect is already apparent as it is affecting the fabulous polar bear adversely and some of the migrating type birds.
I certainly agree that climate change is a fact and I try to reduce my families consumption and we run lpg cars, recycle rubbish, grow our own veg and refuse to fly, all teeny bits but if everyone did it it would help, the only part of climate change that I cannot reconcile is that where I live in the stunning Welsh valleys’s has undergone dramatic climatic changes.My valley was created by the glaciers forcing their way through the rock, and before the ice age my area was tropical rainforest - enabling the coal that made the valley rich to be created - this is proof that climate change is what happens - I don’t think we can change what nature wants to do - we can obviously make a difference by reducing pollution and looking after the environment instead of abusing it but climate change is part of evolution itself.
The problem is that while the earth’s climate, geology and geography have all changed over millennia and will continue to do so, the current changes to the climate are both unprecedently rapid and caused by human pollution.
Do we really want to continue pumping out carbon dioxide (and other pollutants) so we can live it up for just a few more years while waiting for the environment to collapse around us?
We should adopt Seventh Generation thinking and acting, one of the key precepts of the Iroquois Confederacy. Basically, it means considering the effects of our actions on the people who follow seven generations on from us. As a generation is around 22 years, that means thinking 150 years ahead.
Among other things, it’s why I plant oak trees now.