TheMillerCircle.org

Not so long ago climatologists, faced with a man made increase in greenhouse gases of about 100 ppm over the last hundred fifty years or so, had the impression that the increased temperatures experienced on land and in the oceans would nevertheless move very slowly, perhaps over hundreds if not thousands of years, before the warming trend significantly impacted on the huge ice packs of Greenland and the Antarctic. But in recent years,  giant ice sheets have been detached from these regions and scientists are now puzzled to explain it and eager to re-evaluate how much more rapidly the destruction of giant glaciers is taking place in these regions and the mechanisms by which this is being achieved. This is the new alarming worry in the field of global climate change: how quickly will ocean levels rise? Models of just a few years ago need to be thrown out and replaced with more accurate models, but we don’t yet grasp all the variable needed to make more accurate projections. The two massive ice deposits of Greenland and the Antarctic could, if completely melted, raise the sea level by seventy meters, or more than 200 ft. Should that happen, Florida will be underwater and the Mississippi Riverwill drain into the Gulf  of Mexico at the level of Tennessee. Right now, new energies are being focused onto Greenland and the Antarctic region to determine what level of sea water rise can be expected by the end of the century (2100). It is clear that previous estimates and models used for evaluating this problem have been inadequate, but revision of these numbers and estimates will require a lot more study. One issue hampering more detailed analysis of these regions is the loss of satellites that could be used to gather such data on a regular basis. Many of our satellites have come down and have not been replaced. Fortunately, Obama has re-directed NASA’s effort (Bush wanted to send another man to the moon) to focus more on the science of climate change and bills have been passed to achieve this, but funding has yet to be provided.

The central problem with our glaciers is that the water underneath them seems to be warm enough (40 degrees) to melt the ice above them and make glaciers move faster towards the ocean and dissolve more quickly. Not long ago, these ice sheets were considered to be in equilibrium–whatever they lost during warmer months into the ocean, was recaptured during colder periods from more snow. This equilibrium concept has been shattered in recent years by huge chunks of ice that have broken off by mechanisms that are not yet well understood, but thinning of the ice from warm water below is a major suspect, though still an unproven one. Just how this warm water is reaching regions of Greenland and the Antarctic is unclear, but changes in ocean current patterns, another feature of global climate change, might be forcing warmer water to these regions. We can look for this problem to receive intensive study in the future, as this will be the most obvious affect of global climate change that will require changes in social planning well in advance, especially for cities such as London and New York (to name just a few) that will have to accommodate more inundation from the sea. These cities may require an elaborate dike system, like those of the Netherlands.

Scientists are urged to quickly come up with a figure for the global rise in sea level that will be present in the year 2100. The main alarm is whether the ocean levels will rise faster than global societies can make appropriate adjustments to protect their populations. About the middle of this century the global population will reach nine billion people, with hundreds of millions living in areas highly vulnerable to even small increases in ocean levels. The sea levels may have been stable for thousands of years, during the development of human civilization, which took place between the previous and future ice age. But as a result of human activity during the growth of the industrial revolution, and burning of fossil fuels, the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have progressively increased the temperature of the land and the oceans. Ice coverings serve to reflect the Sun’s radiation back into the atmosphere, but when glaciers retreat, the exposed land absorbs more heat and further intensifies global warming. This would ordinarily establish a new equilibrium, but with further increases in carbon dioxide, this equilibrium gets pushed towards elimination of these ice packs entirely, resulting in a large increase in ocean levels.

The 2007 report from the InterGovernment Panel Climate Change (IPCC), estimated that sea levels would rise by at least 7 inches by 2100, but could rise by as much as two feet. A mere rise of a few feet could place major cities under threat of partial flooding, with some countries such as Bangladesh facing a threat that could cover large parts of the country. But what alarms scientists is that the 2007 IPCC report may have been  too conservative and more recent findings suggesting a more accelerated level of glacier melting, are forcing them to increase their own projections, but do so at a time when the mechanisms of Greenland and Antarctic ice breakup  are still poorly understood.  Recently, Justin Gillis writing in the
the NYT provided a very good summary of some of the issues and problems of ocean level changes and how difficult it is to study and predict them. Anyone interested in this absorbing topic will be much better informed by reading the article in it’s entirety. Ocean levels will rise during this century. That is a guaranteed result of global climate change and warming of the ocean waters. There is some evidence that we are rapidly approaching a level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that existed when the Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland ice masses were first formed. Right now, we are at about 380 ppm carbon dioxide, but projections of 400 ppm and beyond get us into the range were some scientists believe we will reach a tipping point at which all three ice packs will melt–it is only a question of the rate of melting. It is very likely we will enter this zone of vulnerability and witness more directly the impact of this new danger zone. Scientists used to think that melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets would take centuries or more to complete, but the warm water mechanism recently discovered as a new component to glacier melting represents an accelerating factor for which no time table presently exists. We may have to live with the fact that the Earth will eventually see an elevation of more than 200 ft in ocean levels and a change of that magnitude will require huge changes in social organization and planning. It is unlikely that this alarming level of ocean increase will occur by the year 2100. There’s too much ice still embedded above surface level within the Antarctic and Greenland ice packs and these regions are still very cold. Some scientists however suggest that this conservative estimate may be too conservative. The trouble is that until we have a more reliable model of these changes, which may take many years to develop, we will face an uncertain future about the rate of sea level rise, even over the next few decades. When in doubt, stay tuned.

RFM

• Leave a comment... Comments Off

Except for Obama, the G20 are advocating budget cuts, reductions in public services and other severe austerity measures as a way of recovering from the Great Global Recession. Such moves will only prolong the recovery and plunge countries into greater fiscal crisis and debt.  Europe now has many ongoing experiments to prove the point. In contrast, Obama has stuck with the right formula, even though his own stimulus package during the first year of his presidency was woefully inadequate and he has been sluggish to articulate the fact that we must have a second round of stimulation spending or we further delay our own economic recovery. Obama has emphasized in the G20 meeting that countries must grow out of the recession and be less concerned about debt, which will only worsen if spending is reduced. The European experiments, which have economies going in the wrong direction, include those of Ireland, Spain, Greece and Portugal. Ireland’s problem has been exacerbated by the recent rise in their borrowing costs when their bonds went from 6 to 9%; their bond sales have reached the all time high for a European Union country; Spain has negative growth with 20% unemployment while the Greek economy has been revised downward for more bad news about their economic growth; the Greeks are projected to  have a debt of 144% of GDP in 2013, up from 115% in 2009 (from the Weisbrot article below).

The European authorities have not been sufficiently visionary to see more clearly the need to stimulate their economies rather than contract spending, which only makes unemployment rise further as  the public debt situation becomes much worse. In contrast, debt made worse by stimulating the economy provides jobs and enhances tax revenue while debt from spending cuts adds to unemployment and further escalates the debt, but without the employment benefit. To a free marketeer, unemployment is irrelevant.  Debt is going to increase during a recession–why not use the stimulus approach to make the debt lower the level of unemployment misery. That should be the first commitment of government–high employment. For a recent assessment on the G20 recommendations, check out economist Mark Weisbrot’s article in The Guardian. Weisbrot concludes, that for the global economy to improve, the wealthier countries must lead the way, but contracting their spending puts the economic vector in the wrong direction. The G20, like the 2010 election results in America, have become conservative to the point of being blind to economic history. The sole purpose of conservative opposition to stimulating the economy is to avoid the temptation to raise their taxes when the debt gets to be a problem. Therefore, the debt reduction proposal is in reality a way for the bankers to pay for their economic blunders by reducing benefits to the middle class. Social Security is solvent  for up to and very likely beyond 2037. How many other budgets do we worry about that far into the future? Remember that when Newt Gingrich took over the House in 1994, his “Contract with America” (which seemed more like a “contract ON America”) included the elimination of Social Security. What remains inexplicable is how many middle class voters, with white males predominating over white females, insist on voting for a party that is out to destroy their benefits. Yet, each time an established benefit is challenged, they either fight like hell to keep it, or deny that it’s a Federal Program (yes, some Tea Party members interviewed have claimed that Medicare plus is not a Federal Program).

RFM

• Leave a comment... Comments Off

It appeared to be like an exercise in synchronized swimming, as if Obama had partnered his departure for Asia with the sorrowful results of the 2010 election: first stop India. Having been rejected by 29 million Americans who voted for him in 2008, but stayed home in 2010, Obama is more than licking his wounds–he wonders who his friends really are and whether he can repair his political rudder after such a disastrous landslide for Republicans, who if anything are less popular than the Democrats they overthrew (we know it’s all about the economy and Obama’s too small stimulus program). Whatever Obama’s strategy will be to salvage his presidency and his future election prospects, he hopes to sail in smoother waters during his current trip to Asia. It is in India that, among other things, Obama plans to conclude a new sales agreement for American armaments, the one industry left where the U.S. still reigns supreme. But the growing economic strengths in Asia, together with the new energy demands of a rapidly expanding economic region, force us to deal with the most problematic issue of the current Asian trip: what relevance do the priorities of the United States have for this rapidly developing region of the globe? In a place that is booming economically, with India and China experiencing 8-9% annual economic growth, can we still sell wars, sanctions against oil-rich Iran and treat the region as if the Cold War had never really ended? We still insist on a model of American hegemony for all regions of the globe.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney wanted to begin the 21st Century with a militaristic stamp that would assert American dominance for the new century in much the same way that we managed the latter half of the  20th Century immediately after the Second World War. But unknown to them, the world had changed. Our knowledgeable colleague, Juan Cole, writing in the TomDispatch,  offers a penetrating view on the kind of relevance American policies  have for the Asia of today, particularly after the disastrous, disinvestment policies of the Bush administration and the financialization of the American economy coupled to our hollowed-out manufacturing base and our major downsizing of decent paying jobs.  Looming on the horizon for Asia is a set of new objectives that make American priorities seem irrelevant and even silly. For a sobering discussion of Obama’s challenge for projecting American power into Asia, Juan Cole’s perceptive article is about how far we have fallen as a recognized world economic superpower and how much Obama’s Asian trip represents the New American reality for everyone with the exception of a few million Americans.

Obama might have left for his Asian trip with a sense of relief to get away from domestic politics, but when he comes home and ponders what has been achieved, he will likely be confronted with a vacuous image of American dominance that exists today only in the form of a new mythology for those Americans susceptible to images created by our hubris. What America needs today is to get on a couch with a trusted therapist, relax sufficiently so that the analyst can explain that we suffer from a major personality disorder and we are not properly visualizing reality. It may come in time, but will our ship of state still be afloat? Who will pin prick this naive American bubble and the dream state that keeps it inflated?  What one finds  so bothersome about our foreign policy is that we never learn from our mistakes. We lose wars, but then somehow call them victories and create millions of new subscribers who believe these false narratives. Iraq is one example but we are generating a new one in Afghanistan in which we produce costly, useless wars but can’t get out of them unless we can somehow create the illusion of a victory. In the meantime, we prevent ourselves from facing these realities because at home we have food fights between Republicans and Democrats. As the loser, Russia was able to put the Cold War behind it, but as the winner we cannot. What then did we actually win?

RFM

• Leave a comment... Comments Off