Waves of Destruction...
By Thom Hartmann A...
We've known for some time that warming temperatures pose a big threat to Arctic ocean ice. However, only now are we learning about so-called “waves of destruction” that are speeding up the disappearance of sea ice.
According to a recent article by Mark Harris in Scientific American, the loss of sea ice in the Arctic has allowed large waves to develop in the now-open water. Those waves then break up the remaining sea ice, thus creating a feedback loop that could spell disaster for the ice caps.
Back in 2010, a Norwegian research vessel called the RV Lance set out to study ice pack, as they did every season. Although in previous years the team was able to walk out on to the ice pack, and even camp on larger floes, the 2010 team found too many cracks in the ice to explore safely.
After moving their ship deeper into the ice pack, the scientists noticed how small waves were quickly growing in size and breaking up large pieces of ice. That team recorded some waves that were more than 30 feet high, and watched as they rapidly broke the ice into thousands of smaller pieces.
The whole process is so fast and powerful that areas of over 16 kilometers of ice were destroyed in one hour. And, because of their ability to begin quickly and rapidly increase in power, these waves are nearly impossible to predict.
In addition to destroying sea ice, the waves are also very dangerous to ships, oil-drilling platforms, and arctic communities. This is what happens when a feedback loop is created, and this is how a small rise in temperatures quickly becomes a global catastrophe.
If we don't work harder to restore our environment, we may not survive as a species. We only have one planet to call home, so let's get busy making sure we can survive here in the future. Check out GreenWorldRising.org for more information.
Comments
#2
If you really want to save the enviroment, don't have any kids, legalize abortion (and make it mandatory in some cases), abolish seatbelt laws and all 'personal safety laws', put an end to life extending medical services, stop issuing vaccines, promote careless behaviors, unsafe drug use, and unsafe driving, and promote homosexuality as an alternative recreational sexual activity.
In short...negative population growth!
It's not just what people are doing to the environment, it's also the sheer number of people doing it to the environment.
#3
Stecoop, I agree that overpopulation is a large part of the problem. I do NOT agree with your solutions.
#4
stepcoop01...I assume you're being flippant???
The Kochs and other carbon barons just like them, despite being in the twilight of their years on this planet, are still obsessed with the god almighty dollar and the arbitrary feeling of power that comes with it. Their legacy will not be unlike the endless parade of tyrants who have preceded them......ruinus, self puffed, myopic delusional sociopaths who should have been stopped long ago by a government that promotes the general welfare to ourselves and our posterity. That government no longer exists, and it's up to, we the people, to revolt and re-establish what our founders intended. The riots directed against cops needs to magnify into a movement focused on social and economic justice...what the hell are we waiting for?????, ..the Kochs to gain another ten billion?
#5
Edward: I don't mean to simplify or disagree with your idea of a rental fee on natures commons....but how about just returning to the pre-Reagan tax rates? I think that would cover about 90% of the wealthy individuals you, and or, Henry George intend to target. I realize this won't necessarily encourage increased high density population in urban settings, but it would certainly diminish the power of those who make millons off developing and abusing our natural resources.
#6
Earth vs People - Earth can get rid of the human nuisance quite easily and when greed puts blinkers on those who control industries and resources everyone loses. Also, the need to feed and cater for billions leads to the creation of 'short cuts' which have an effect on the soil and on the climate.
Consider, however, that climate change is inevitable and has always happened. The acceleration we are detecting may well have a lot to do with the fact that the electro-magnetic field of the earth has been 'relocating' for some time and is moving faster now. This has nothing to do with humans for the most part although nuclear underground explosions of the past may well have had an effect.
The poles have not always been covered with ice and mountains have been ocean floor in the past. It's planetary life cycles. We need to prepare for them.
#7
SOO...Thom...MORE Evidence for Catastrophic Climate Change, NOT the 'thousands of yrs' that leading Scientists have continually quoted as giving us time to 'fix'.
Thom, we have passed EVERY previous Model of 'Tipping Points', for Climate Collapse due to CO2 accumulation. ALSO; Geologists have 'quietly' agreed that the Magnetic Pole of the Earth is moving, as it's done MNY time in Planetary History.
WHY is this important? BC the Layers of Earth Core's Studied, show that Pole Shifts happen Catastrphically, NOT the 'Thousands of Yrs' that Scientists are telling us, AND, Pole Shifts ALSO affect Earth's Climate, actually HELPING the Earth's warming BC, both Cosmic AND Solar Radiation, historically, SCOUR the Earth when our Magnetic Belts no longer protect the Earth.
THIS is our TRUE Future Thom.
there are Geological Layers of LIFE...and Layers of DEATH...we call them Extinction Events.
WELCOME to Reality.
The 1 'good' thing is; we will NOT have Costner's 'Waterworld'...WHEN all Ice is Melted, it will ONLY reach to, approx, the Statue of Libery's...Chin.
#8
Humanity is headed towards self extinction. The world's RW insists on it and may get its way.
#9
Quote Aliceinwonderland:Stecoop, I agree that overpopulation is a large part of the problem. I do NOT agree with your solutions.
AIW: My solutions are, most of them anyway, wholly impratical, and could never be implemented on a global basis.
The simple fact is, humanity will continue to breed like rabbits, completely oblivious to the impending disaster that awaits us.
#10
Quote 2950-10K:stepcoop01...I assume you're being flippant???
I was trying to be flippant. I'm just very annoyed at all the environmentalists who jabber on about what we're doing to the environment, and these same people have 3, 4, 5, 6, or more kids. There is simply no REAL discussion of controlling population growth, by anyone.
#11
stecoop1 -- What would you consider real discussion? Wherever women are empowered the birthrate becomes negative. The world bank is enabling this process via micro-banks.
At least the population growth is now linear vice exponential. Of course, this condition indicates the end of the species.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
From Screwed:
"If we are going to live in a Democracy, we need to have a healthy middle class. Thom Hartmann shows us how the ‘cons’ have wronged this country, and tells us what needs to be done to reclaim what it is to be American."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann is a literary descendent of Ben Franklin and Tom Paine. His unflinching observations and deep passion inspire us to explore contemporary culture, politics, and economics; challenge us to face the facts of the societies we are creating; and empower us to demand a better world for our children and grandchildren."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom is a national treasure. Read him, embrace him, learn from him, and follow him as we all work for social change."
A small but growing number of economists who understand environmental policy issues are reaching back over a century for guidance. They have discovered in the writings of the American political economist Henry George the means by which we can curtail destruction of the planet's life-support systems. What did Henry George urge in the 1880s? His proposal was simple but would have changed our behavior in important ways: any individual or entity that controlled nature in any form must compensate society for this privilege. As nature is the birthright of all persons equally -- a birthright essential to life itself -- the only practical means to guaranteeing this birthright is for society to collect the full potential annual rental value of whatever land one holds (in cities and towns, tracts of land rich in natural resources to be extracted, frequencies of the broadcast spectrum for television and radio, permissions to pull fish from the seas, oil or gas deep within the earth's crust, or even take-off and landing slots at airports (noting that no two plans can occupy the same place at the same time without very serious consequences). Some environmental economists refer to the public collection of "rent" as the capture of values resulting from societal investment in public goods and services, investments that enable private interests to operate in areas that would otherwise remain inaccessible. Economists who look at urban land markets note that by moving to a land-rental value only property tax base (i.e., one that exempts all buildings and other improvements from taxation), investors would no longer be able to hold land off the market for speculative purposes. Locations in our cities and towns would be brought to "highest, best use" as determined by market forces in combination with community development codes, zoning, and planning regulations. Sprawling development that consumes fertile agricultural land would subside. Cities would have the revenue to replace aging infrastructure, convert to renewable energy sources and draw population back from suburbs, thereby reducing automobile created pollution.
The problem with getting this change in how local governments raise revenue is that there are thousands of municipalities, boroughs, townships, counties and school districts across the country that raise revenue from property taxation. State constitutions require formal amendment in many cases to permit the change in how revenue is raised. Landed interests have the financial muscle to oppose changes they see as harmful to their narrow financial interests, and few politicians grasp the fact that some means of taxation are constructive, others destructive. Ideological bias is also a problem.
Your program and others like it can help create public awareness and, hopefully, public pressure on our public servants to embrace the above change and make it happen. However, this will not happen without continuing reinforcement. One segment here and there will accomplish little. The bibliography of peer reviewed academic studies on the subject is pages long but the findings receive almost no media attention. will RT.com take up the challenge to help change the course of history before it is too late?