opinion@dailylobo.com
Earth’s frozen water is intimately linked to our climate. Snow and ice cool the Arctic and Antarctic, helping to drive global weather patterns and ocean circulation. Snow and ice reflect a portion of our sun’s radiation away from the planet, so the more surface area they cover, the cooler it keeps the planet, and the less surface area they cover, the warmer the planet will become.
The stability of planetary ice volume has been crucial to the development of human civilization, and the growing threat of an ice-free planet imperils life as we know it. As the oceans warm, the volume of ice that lies below the water’s surface decreases, resulting in thinner layers that are brittle and more susceptible to accelerated melting and disintegration. Sediment at the bottom of warmer waters releases more greenhouse gases, which go into the atmosphere. As permafrost melts, massive amounts of methane, another greenhouse gas, are released.
The shrinkage of Himalayan and Peruvian glaciers threatens to deprive many people of the freshwater reservoirs that sustain their communities. The global fishing industry is entirely reliant upon the delicate balance of ocean temperature gradients and currents, which distribute the nutrients required to sustain marine life.
It is important to recognize that the ice that has melted and disintegrated in the last decade will not be replaced for many generations — in fact, not for many centuries.
Scientists call the world of snow and ice the cryosphere. From ice cores, they are able to determine atmospheric content and global temperature for tens of thousands of years, greatly contributing to our knowledge of climate, past and present.
So let’s visit with one of the world’s foremost experts on ice and climate.
Ted Scambos, who holds a doctorate in geology, is a geochemist and lead scientist at the University of Colorado’s National Snow and Ice Data Center, a part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Peter Kindilien: Ted, it was about 10 years ago when your findings first led you to suspect that humans were responsible for much of the climate change we are seeing, and your research is focused on understanding the structural formation of ice shelves and the processes and causes involved with their current accelerated rate of disintegration, correct?
Ted Scambos: Yes, a lot of my work has focused on Antarctica, its ice and especially ice shelves and their disintegration under warm conditions. As for climate change, I would say I learned enough to be convinced by the evidence in the late ‘90s, but events in the early 2000s at both poles really made it clear, and there were several news releases from National Snow and Ice Data Center around that time pointing out the increasing pace of change in the Arctic and Antarctic.
PK: With the mounting evidence pointing to the ominous direction we are headed in, it is obvious that the climate deniers have a smaller and smaller probability of being right. Yet their successful attempts to stifle environmental legislation and industry regulation is a key roadblock to establishing urgently needed economic policies that will reduce our carbon footprint, the United States being one of the top three most-polluting nations. Our policies continue to be based on the less-than-1-percent probability that over 99 percent of the scientific experts are wrong.
Could you give us a peek at your vision of how inaction now will affect the world economies in the next 50 years, if the predicted climate change actually occurs?
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
TS: I think it’s important to recognize that this is the climate policy debate. The skeptic-versus-scientists discussion is driving how our policy and pace of action is unfolding, and it is going to continue to be like this — evolution, not revolution. I think it will play out along the lines of the environmental movement in the ‘70s. There was resistance and backlash, and a lot of discussion that continues to this day, but we are better environmental stewards now than we used to be. Not perfect, but better. I think the problem is that this takes so long to unfold that we really don’t know how much climate trouble we are setting ourselves up for — should we take stronger action? Will it be Katrinas and wildfires every year in the future? (Scientists) would need to make a very strong case for that if we are going to push the nation and the world to move a lot faster. For now, I think the steady drumbeat of warm weather, record heat, drought, low ocean ice cover, Greenland’s surface melting and faster ice flow — these news reports only go in one direction: The planet is warming past historical norms within human memory. These events will slowly move public opinion towards favoring carbon management. At least, I hope so.
PK: As a leading scientist intimately involved in climate research, and as a family man, how would you personally assess national and international political will, up to this point, in addressing the scientific community’s concerns about the increasing emission of greenhouse gases?
TS: It’s low. A bit too low, but I think many scientists recognize that now is a tricky time to advocate big changes in energy infrastructure. There is no doubt that a lot of our response this century is going to be “adaptation”: move the crops around, conserve water, more air conditioner sales, insurance rate changes, manage the disasters one by one. But, as people really see the progression that is unfolding, it will increasingly include long-term changes in energy generation. One of the good things about the Internet and global connectivity is that we hear about effects everywhere, from the Arctic to Albuquerque. When record events continue to happen globally, people will think of action. As you point out, this is something we as a society are doing for our children and grandchildren. They can be very effective lobbyists.
PK: According to a recent TakePart.com article, “Climate Change Deniers in the House of Representatives Targeted for Defeat,” the League of Conservation Voters, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, “is pouring $1.5 million into a campaign to defeat five of the most outspoken climate deniers currently in the House.” Do you think this sort of grassroots/super-PAC environmental-policy pressure will become integral to moving our government out of its laissez-faire attitude toward climate crises management, and towards defeating special-interest PAC influence against responsible long-term environmental policies?
TS: I probably should not comment on this. It’s one strategy. I’d rather see both parties accept the evidence and continue the debate on the basis of “now what should we do about it?” There is plenty of room for disagreement and policy refinement in that framework.
