Radical Noesis - Thinking outside the box

This week we got the disturbing report that the Arctic ice field has decreased dramatically (see also Independent, Guardian). In fact, the melt is 20 percent above average, and at 500,000 square miles of melted ice (that is larger than twice the size of Texas), there is certainly cause for "alarm." While I am not a scientist, I am also not a mathematician, but at that rate sound bites like: "The ice field may melt totally in this century," seem to be trying to give some comfort. Meaning that "in this century" means within the next 95 years. IF we lose 500,000 square miles of Arctic ice a year, then my guess is that we are looking much closer to the beginning of this century than towards the end.

Regardless, the Arctic (and the Antarctic) are melting rapidly. In the north, apparently the variables are the loss of atmospheric protection or one hand, and increasing water and surface temperature on the other. The melting causes a couple of other changes that should be of concern - increasing water temperature at the Arctic, and decreasing water salinity. Both of the (if I am reading the literature properly) affect ocean current movement. A decrease in the water temperature difference between the equator and the pole has the effect of essentially slowing down the North Atlantic current (Gulf Stream).

Now one of the things that we do know is that warm water is like "steroids" for tropical storms and hurricanes. Most of the hurricanes that hit the US are actually spawned off of Africa. The warmer the water that those "disturbances" pass over (assuming other pressure and wind conditions are appropriate) the more strength the storm gains. One thing that is clear (cycle or no) is that the waters of both the mid-Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico are warming. The NY Times had an interesting article on 9/27 - Gulf Currents That Turn Storms Into Monsters, that focused specifically on the Gulf of Mexico and the "loop" current. They have a nice graphic link of the article that is worth looking at.

Not all climatologist are hem-hawing about the relationship between global warming and hurricanes. The Christian Science Monitor carried a piece by Peter Spotts about the increasing strength of hurricanes. Sir John Lawton, chair of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, makes no bones about declaring that the hurricanes are global warming in action.

We are not in the midst of a "fluke" season. There is a limit to the level of "coincidence" and climate is not a "coincidence." Climate operates in a highly integrated way, and there is simply no way that the massive changes at the poles, and the increasing temperature across the ocean, are unrelated to each other.

What this portends for the future is not promising. Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita are likely to become annual events with a growing number of siblings. Both of the storms "lost steam" before hitting the coast, but both also caused more damage than was expected. Climatologists seemed out right surprised by the power and height of the storm surge. What they apparently just discovered is that the waves pushed by a hurricane are set well off landfall. If it is a category four or five as it nears the coast, then the surge is going to match those predictions - not what force it is at when it ultimately hits the coast.

The Gulf coast is the major center of oil and gas in the United States, and the home to much of the petro-chemical industry. There is huge toxic fallout from the last two hurricanes. Given that we are looking at more and stronger storms with the Gulf coast as a likely landfall, why would we also want to locate nuclear power plants there? Are people just plain stupid? Do they really want to reassure us that a nuclear power plant destroyed in a hurricane is less toxic that a refinery or chemical plant?

At some point, the people have to demand that public policy and law come within spitting distance of reality. Right now, the two are so far apart one has to wonder if the powers that be live in some parallel universe.