Our Official Position on Global Warming Vs Global Cooling and what is causing Climate Change

By Suzanne MacNevin and Charles Moffat.

We are writing this together because both of us have changed our minds about what we think is causing climate change.

Up until now we were stern advocates that carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing global warming and climate change. We are here now because we are not officially changing our opinions on the topic. We are changing our opinions because we have both become convinced that it is Solar Cycles that caused global warming during the 1980s and early 1990s.

And caused the reverse, brief global cooling during the 1970s.

Our opinions have been changed because we started taking a closer look at the data concerning Solar Cycles and how solar activity from the sun effects the climate here on Earth.

It is actually fairly simple.

The sun goes through Solar Cycles, periods lasting years during which there are higher numbers of sun spots. Now that sun itself gives off a constant amount of heat - that never seems to change. Sun spots however, fluctuate wildly, but they do follow a set pattern, which looks a bit like waves.

The current solar cycle, Solar Cycle 24, starting in 2009 and is expected to end around 2020. Possibly sooner because it is slowing down faster than expected. See the chart below.

In the chart below it shows Solar Cycles 22, 23 and part of 24. As you can see they are getting weaker and weaker. What you don't see in the chart below is all of Solar Cycle 21, during the height of the 1980s global warming period. And likewise Solar Cycle 20, which was a lot point - and the result of global cooling during the 1970s.

In the chart below you can see Solar Cycle 20 beginning in 1965 and ending in 1976. That was the period when scientists first started talking about the possibility of Global Cooling. (The Pink marks on the chart below show years during which there was an El Nino effect, which also warms the planet.)

The high points of Solar Cycle 21 (1977 to 1986) and Solar Cycle 22 (1987 to 1996) was the period during which the Global Warming discussion started to heat up. Unfortunately, solar physicists were largely ignored and the finger pointing turned to CO2 and greenhouse gases, which admittedly do warm up the atmosphere, but does not effect the temperatures any where as much as solar emissions do.

Solar Cycle 23 (1997 to 2009) coincided with a period known as "the Global Warming Pause", a period that started in 1993 during which the global average temperature (GAT) has fluctuated up and down, but hasn't made any remarkable increase or decrease.

Now we should note that some environmentalists deny the existence of the Global Warming Pause, ignoring the raw data that shows that GAT numbers are fluctuating up and down with no real increase or decrease in global temperatures.

We should also note that in recent years, 2010 to 2015, that the polar ice caps are actually expanding, regaining ice coverage in comparison to previous years.

Now we understand that people are going to send us hatemail about this. But to be fair, we've already been called all sorts of names previous that were worse with respect to our leftwing political beliefs. So don't bother. We've heard much worse before.

And admittedly it does feel weird, being devout leftwingers and making an about-face and reversing our position on the issue of global warming. We have not however changed our position on the issue of climate change.

Climate change is still happening. The big difference now is that we now assert that instead of global warming, that we should see a period of global cooling. According to a team of European solar physicists they are predicting a period of global cooling that will last from 2020 until 2070. This period will be similar to the Maunder Minimum that lasted from approx. 1650 to 1700, a period which was known as the "Mini Ice Age". They made this prediction by discovering the sun has a double dynamo magnetosphere which effects sunspots, and consequently made a computer model which predicts with 98% accuracy the rate of sunspot production. The computer model estimates that Solar Cycle 25 (approx. 2020 to 2031) will be so weak that it will cause a noticeable cooling in the earth's temperatures. Solar Cycles 26, 27 and 28 (approx. 2032 to 2065) will be so weak that they are practically non-existent, a period during which we can expect to see record colds, famine, food shortages, and wars over resources.

Historically, periods of extreme colds have been known to topple empires. Or make new ones.

So what about CO2?

Well, it still effects the weather and does contribute to global warming, but does it really effect the weather as much as we think it does?

Lets do the math.

In 1980 the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were 337 parts per million (PPM). Or 0.0337% of our atmosphere.

In 2015 the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were 388 parts per million. 0.0388% of our atmosphere.

That is a 15.13% increase in CO2 over a 35 period. Or a 0.0051% increase compared to our entire atmosphere.

So lets talk about why that number is important. A 0.0051% increase in CO2 compared to the entirely of the air we breathe. How much does that 0.0051% increase actually effect the temperature?

What we really need is a lab test.

1 jar filled with "modern air" from 2015. 388 PPM CO2.

1 jar filled with air from 1980 (or comparable to 1980 air). 337 PPM CO2.

Set both jars in front of a heat source, equal distance from the heat source and leave them for 10 hours, with no other sources of heat nearby. Wait the 10 hours and then measure both jars and see if there is any temperature difference.

For fun we should also have 1 jar that is filled with 100% CO2 and see how much of a difference that makes. And while we are at it, other jars filled with 100% other kinds of greenhouse gases.

We have seen this test on YouTube before. But the problem with the test is that in the youtube video they used 1 jar filled with 100% CO2 and 1 jar with normal air. What we really need is a test showing the difference between a jar with 337 PPM and a jar with 388 PPM.

How big is the sun's effect on the Earth's climate?

Well lets put this in context. The sun is GIGANTIC. The sun is 1,300,000 times the size of the Earth and is responsible for 99.9999999% of our surface heat. Without the sun the Earth would be a frozen wasteland. The molten core of the earth would also eventually freeze without the heat from the sun, so don't expect any help from the molten core.

Life as we know it would cease to exist if the amount of heat we get from the sun dipped a mere 0.1%.

Heat isn't the only thing we get from the sun either. The sun also has a double dynamo magnetosphere and behaves like a gigantic electro-magnet, with its magnetosphere reaching to the edges of the solar system. The magnetosphere protects the earth from cosmic rays which effect cloud cover. The sun's magnetosphere shifts constantly, as does the earth's own magnetosphere. During these shifts there are periods which cause the earth to be exposed to larger doses of cosmic rays, which cause more cloud formation and colder temperatures. It is theorized that these magnetic fluctuations and increased cosmic ray activity plays a major role in the creation of large scale ice ages.

The last ice age ended about 22,000 years ago and we are currently overdue for a new one, as interglacial periods usually only last about 10,000 to 15,000 years. We are currently 7000 years overdue for a new ice age.

The fact that the Earth's magnetic north and south poles are starting to rapidly move has many scientists worried that we could see a dramatic shift in the earth's magnetosphere. The north pole is currently moving at a rate of 64 km per year (40 miles per year). The south pole meanwhile is also moving - zigzagging its way north towards Australia.

As the sun's double dynamo magnetosphere fluctuates, so does the earth's. The magnetosphere effects sun spots and the amount of heat the sun gives off (which effects the earth's temperature), and a shrinking magnetosphere lets in more cosmic rays to the earth (which increases cloud cover and colder temperatures).

Unlike the Maunder Minimum (1650 to 1700), which saw the poles barely even move, the poles are currently accelerating as they move, which suggests something new is happening that scientists haven't seen before.

So we could actually be facing a double whammy of lower temperatures from the sun, and increased cloud cover from cosmic rays. The first we already know is happening, as solar physics is a well-established science that has been around for centuries. The second, cosmic rays, we know comparatively little about. Scientists simply have not had enough time to study the effects of cosmic rays on weather.

So to all the people worried about global warming and rising sea levels, we are sorry. We apologize. We made a big whoops there. Our next big worry is global cooling, energy shortages, and food shortages.

That means it is ever more important that we invest in energy technology, such as wind turbines and geothermal energy. Solar energy is too unreliable. The sun and clouds are too unreliable.

On the plus side, as the poles get colder it will result in stronger winds. More storms too, but the wind means wind turbines will be a wise investment for homeowners. For governments, geothermal energy is the wise choice.

Snow in Egypt for the first time in 112 years

The photo below is of the streets of Cairo, Egypt this morning. It is the first time that it has snowed in Egypt in 112 years! Further below if photos of the Great Pyramids of Giza and also the Sphinx, likewise covered in snow.

So if you have any doubts that global warming / climate change is real, here is your proof. (Honestly, explaining things to naysayers is getting pretty silly. The proof is outside but they refuse to accept it.)

What is happening is the hotter temperatures in the arctic is causing stronger winds which are forcing polar temperatures further south during the winter, resulting in bizarre / abnormally cold temperatures in places that normally don't get snow.

Coal is the true Greenhouse Gas Killer

ENVIRONMENT - Alberta's tar pits (aka the oil sands) isn't likely to make much difference as far as global warming and climate change is concerned, says Andrew Weaver, one of the world’s top climate change scientists.

Weaver has calculated that emissions from from burning coal to make electricity is the real threat to the planet's ecosystem.

“I was surprised by the results of our analysis,” says Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate change specialist, who has been a lead author on two reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Weaver and colleague Neil Stewart analyzed how burning all global stocks of coal, oil and natural gas would affect temperatures. Their analysis includes unconventional gas, such as undersea methane hydrates and shale gas produced by fracking, as well as unconventional sources including the Canadian tar sands.

Weaver and Stewart found that if all the hydrocarbons in the tar sands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about 0.36 Celsius.

When only commercially viable tar sands deposits are considered, the temperature increase is only 0.03 Celsius. So the Canadian tar sands is just a drop in the proverbial bucket (although it is still an ecological hazard for the petrochemicals being spilled into the water supply and giving cancer to residents who drink the local water, to say nothing of the damage caused to plants and animals in the region).

In contrast, burning all the globe’s vast coal deposits would create a 15 Celsius increase in temperature. Burning all the abundant natural gas would warm the planet by 3.1 degrees.

Governments around the world have agreed to try to keep global warming to two degrees, although little action is currently be done to stop the changes.

“The conventional and unconventional oil is not the problem with global warming,” says Weaver. “The problem is coal and unconventional natural gas.”

The increased dependence on coal for the purpose of making electricity is what governments should really worry about.

Burning all the oil in the world would raise temperatures by 0.9 Celsius.

The end message is that countries need to start shutting down coal burners and switch to nuclear, solar, wind and geothermal energy.

It is estimated it would only take 5 large geothermal facilities to produce all the energy Canada needs, but the Canadian government is refusing to even build 1 geothermal facility despite the success of Canadian geothermal companies operating overseas.

2011 was the 10th Hottest Year in recorded history

ENVIRONMENT - 13 of the hottest year in recorded history were in the last 15 years. This past year was no different, tying for the number 10 spot. The global warming phenomenon and its cause due to greenhouse gases will certainly continue to be a hot topic in 2012.

Our governments will continue to ignore the threat of climate change and the growing sense of environmental catastrophe will expand as we encounter longer droughts, deeper floods, record setting hurricanes and bizarre weather.

World temperatures keep rising and we are heading for irreversible changes as the Arctic sea ice has shrunk to record-low volumes in 2011, the melting of the permafrost and rising sea levels. Rising sea levels is the biggest danger since most of the world's population lives in coastal cities which would be flooded by just a 7 meter increase (scientists have determined that if both poles melted it would be an approximately 21 meter increase). Some island nations will be destroyed entirely by rising sea levels.

"The science is solid and proves unequivocally that the world is warming," says R.D.J. Lengoasa, deputy director of the International Meteorological Organization. "Climate change is real, and we are already observing its manifestations in weather and climate patterns around the world," he said on the sidelines of the UN climate conference under way in South Africa.

2011 has been a year of extreme weather. Extreme drought in East Africa has left tens of thousands dead, and there have been deadly floods in Asia, and 14 separate weather catastrophes in the United States with damage topping $1 billion each. American insurance rates are skyrocketing due to weather alone.

Climate negotiators have set a goal of keeping temperatures from rising more than 2 C above preindustrial levels. The global temperature average is already 0.8 C above the preindustrial average.

"Forget about it. It's too late," says Michel Jarraud, IMO's secretary-general, who also says the 2.3 F target already is out of reach because countries keep bickering over blame and doing nothing.

Scientists are now stating the record high concentrations of greenhouse gases will result in the average global temperature eventually rising another 2.4 C above 2011 levels.

2011 saw high temperatures saturated the Earth despite a La Nina event, when low surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean normally has a cooling effect on the entire globe. 2012 is expected to be one of the top 5 hottest years on record.

This means bizarre and extreme weather will increase in both frequency and intensity as the Earth continues to warm.

PREDICTION: The melting of sea ice in the poles will create channels through which ocean currents can pull ice farther into warmer waters, causing a chain reaction and sea ice melting at a faster rate than normal. Similar events happened during the collapse of ice shelves in previous years, but the ocean currents could speed up the process.

Tornadoes, Floods kill 40 people in America's Midwest

ENVIRONMENT - At least 37 people are dead and many more are missing as a juggernaut storm of 62 tornadoes, flash floods and hail swept through Oklahoma to North Carolina and Virginia, leaving carnage and death in its wake.

Emergency crews today are searching for victims in collapsed homes as the death toll skyrockets, the worst Spring storm in over 20 years to hit the region. Ten people were confirmed dead in Bertie County, North Carolina alone. Another 3 people were trapped inside a mobile home in the North Carolina capital city of Raleigh.

State emergency management officials say more than 20 people were killed by the storms in North Carolina alone, but have yet to release final numbers of fatalities. One emergency management agency said it had reports of 22 deaths, but the numbers don't match what the government is saying.

At least four more deaths were reported in Virginia, where they expect the toll to rise.

The storm killed more people on Thursday night in Oklahoma, then roared through Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia. 7 people died in Arkansas; 7 more in Alabama; 2 in Oklahoma; and 1 in Mississippi.

The last time there was such a big Spring storm in the region was when 62 tornadoes were reported in March 1984, a storm which killed 57 people — 42 in North Carolina — and injured hundreds.

“He did two tours of duty in Iraq and the scene was worse than he ever saw in Iraq — that’s pretty devastating,” said one of the emergency volunteers, speaking about a friend a fellow volunteer.

NOTE: Scientists say that thanks to climate change and global warming we can expect these storms to become more intense as hotter temperatures will cause more extreme weather.

2 Degree Temperature Increase in Canada

CANADA/ENVIRONMENT - Canada has a lot to lose if the global mean temperature rises by 2 degrees, according to a new climate change report released in Ottawa Tuesday. See "Degrees of Change".

Up north, Canada’s Arctic sea ice will be halved, runoff in the Saskatchewan River basin would be reduced, and shipping through the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway would cost more.

The report is the first ever comprehensive illustration of expected climate change in Canada, a joint project of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and the Royal Canadian Geographical Society.

The details of the research is covered in depth on the website above, as well as in the October issue of Canadian Geographic.

The 2 degree temperature increase will also have an effect on Canadian resources, Halifax’s rising harbour, and an impact on health care.

The website also has a detailed poster/map that looks at what would happen to Canada if the temperature increases between 1 and 5 degrees Celsius.

Other changes include:

Western mountain glaciers losing 50 per cent of their volume;

More deaths from heat waves;

More deaths from poor air quality;

Loss of boreal forest and tundra;

Polar bear populations at risk of extinction;

Exposure to vector borne diseases;

Compromised water quality;

More water-borne disease outbreaks.

"When will we ever learn from our mistakes?"

Flooding in Pakistan a sign of climate change

By Ai Lung Nguyen - September 2010.

ENVIRONMENT - Pakistan is normally a relatively dry country.

Monsoon season effects Pakistan's neighbour India far more while Iran and Pakistan have very little rain in a normal year. The recent catastrophic flooding in Pakistan hasn't just moved millions of people and destroyed their homes, its been so severe its cut new rivers from the soil and rock. The intensity of the flooding is unheard of in the normally dry country.

This however could prove useful to Pakistan's economy in the future, as their climate shifts from being a more arid one to a country with a lot more water and agricultural capabilities. Adapting to this change in terms of agriculture will take time and effort



However in the meantime the flooding has contaminated Pakistan's wells, which means even traditional drinking water sources are now polluted and a source of disease. Millions of Pakistan's people rely on traditional dug wells and aquifiers and the increasing urbanization of Pakistan has put greater demand on a limited supply of clean water.

The history of flooding in Pakistan (or lack thereof) suggests that there will be less droughts in the country and more severe rain. In contrast China is seeing more mudslides and sandstorms, and Russia is seeing more hot, dry weather and forest/grass fires. The cost of these environmental changes will hurt the farming industries in these countries and should be noted that agriculture's effect on GDP is often unknown because a lot of food production goes on that isn't really tracked because its consumed locally and often traded using a barter system in rural cultures which often lack hard currency.

Thus the economic damages of droughts and flooding isn't just limited to the homes effected and the crops destroyed. The whole system is disrupted and money is worthless when you don't have food to eat and clean water to drink.

The technology and equipment to filter and clean large amounts of water is available, but the infrastructure to distribute it to millions of Pakistani flood refugees doesn't exist.

Parts of the landscape now look like lakes and people wonder if they will ever be able to return home.

Meanwhile in Agra, India, the Taj Mahal has been flooded.

A bad omen for the future? Maybe. Or perhaps its a sign of the times and proof that climate change is here to stay.

Interpret it as you will.

Hurricane Earl blows into Nova Scotia

CANADA - As we write this CBC Radio (Atlantic) is tracking calls from listeners as Hurricane Earl makes landfall in Nova Scotia and moves towards Halifax. Trees and power lines are down, cars are hydroplaning on the highways and even a truck carrying 180,000 across the causeway was being pushed around by winds reaching up to 120 kmh.

No longer technically a hurricane but a category 1 tropical storm, the windspeeds and torrential rainfall are nevertheless expected to wallop Nova Scotia and the Canadian Maritimes with significant damage.

Heavy sheets of rain and strong gusts have raised concerns about the public's safety as some people head out to check out the strong winds and high waves. Not much we can do about the fools except warn them about their stupidity. In past years there has been a number of fatalities involving people who were swept off the rocks and into the churning seas.

According to Nova Scotia Power more than 110,000 customers are without power, but power is expected to be restored within hours. Farmers and orchard growers meanwhile are fretting about their crops (ie. apples) which will be damaged by the storm.

There are also a slew of flight cancellations at airports across Atlantic Canada as people trying to flee the storm are waiting out delays.

Hurricanes hitting Atlantic Canada are not unheard of, but global warming in recent years in recent years has been estimated to increase the intensity of such storms by up to 40%.

CBC Radio is warning people to stay at home for awhile after the storm passes because roads and beaches won't really be safe yet. "Stay out of the way, stay safe."

Meanwhile one radio caller says her daughter and a friend are going outside with shampoo to have "a shower" in the backyard.

See Also: Hurricanes in Europe?

Clinton pushing climate change initiatives in Canada

ENVIRONMENT - Bill Clinton was in Canada last Saturday promoting climate change initiatives and free health care.

Of course, Canada already has free health care, but the point is still made. The United States is just starting on the road to free health care, for every uninsured child, senior and adult in the United States.

Clinton tried to pass free health care during his 8 years in the White House and only managed a few meager initiatives, health care programs for uninsured children. His goal of free health care for Americans was shouted down by Republican bigots in Congress worried about the overall cost and "Communist-style health care" (which is nonsense, because the USA up until 2009 was the only western country that didn't have free health care).

When George W. Bush got into power America's public health care system took one step forward and two steps backward. Bush signed into law a Medicare drug benefit program (something even Canada doesn't have), but later vetoed State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation which would have expanded free health care to ten million American children (and would have been funded by a modest increase to cigarette taxes).

Since getting into power President Obama has quickly managed to do what Clinton couldn't do because he didn't have support from Congress, and what Bush refused to do because he doesn't give a damn about poor people. Less than a month in power and riding on overwhelming support and a Democratic majority in Congress, Obama signed the United States into a new era of free health care.

The issue is still being discussed in Congress, but its essentially a done deal. Better yet Obama already found a way to pay for it by decreasing the amount wealthy people get back from the IRS when they make charitable donations. Wealthy Americans used to get back 35% of their donation, but now they only get back 28%.

And poof! Free health care in America finally became a reality. Done and paid for.

Now if only we could do the same thing for the environment?

Clinton is effectively an unofficial ambassador for the Obama administration. So whenever he visits Canada or other nations overseas to give speeches, he's not just acting as a former president who cares about the USA, he's acting as a global ambassador for the USA to the rest of the world. That is how a former American president should act... help the USA and the world by being a spokesperson. (You will note Bush in comparison avoids the spotlight as much as possible.)

The problem is that selling the environment is a much tougher sell than health care (and we can see how long it took Americans to join the rest of the civilized world).

Think of it like a car... when you buy a new car from the Ford Motor Co. you expect it to work properly. But lo and behold they bought cheap brakes from China and the next thing you know you are upside down in a ditch, the car is on fire and in order to rescue you the firemen have to amputee your leg.

Afterwards you sue the Ford Motor Co. for damages (because they imported faulty brakes from China) and are awarded millions. Ford then promises to only buy quality brakes built in North America and has to recall thousands of cars to replace the brakes on each one.

But what about the tailpipe? Try and make the argument that cars pollute, produce greenhouse gases, which locks in heat, which causes global warming, which causes climate change, which causes a host of other environmental problems like polar ice caps melting and rising sea levels.

You can't sue Ford for damages. You'd have to sue the entire automotive industry, the coal industry and any other industry producing excess amounts of greenhouses gases... and it wouldn't just be the United States. It would be a global lawsuit. Its so ridiculously huge it would just plain never happen.

Thus trying to sell green initiatives to Americans can be very tricky. We can't even do it in Canada because we currently have a corrupt Conservative government under the "do nothing" bogus Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Harper has no intention of setting caps on greenhouse gases. He's been bought and paid off by the Alberta oil industry and the Atlantic coal industry.

Name one thing Harper has done to help the environment since getting into the PM's chair in February 2006? He announced some new national parks. That is it. The man epitomizes the "do nothing" approach to politics.

There has been no new "climate change initiatives" in Canada since Paul Martin left power in 2006.

And thus we come full circle. Now we understand why Bill Clinton is pushing such initiatives in Canada. Its because our own government is too lazy and corrupt to do it themselves.

83% of Canadians support initiatives to combat global warming and climate change. So why can't we elect a government that will actually make good on its promises?

Its because Canada has three separate left-wing parties: The Liberals, the NDP and the Greens. The NDP and the Greens will NEVER get elected and win a majority government, but the vote splitting between the three has resulted in the Liberal party being held back from winning majority governments. Its the reason we keep getting minority Conservative governments.

Remember Stephane Dion's idea to put a tax on carbon emissions? He bet an election on it and failed, despite the fact that it was originally a Conservative idea. What happened was the Reform Party (which has since changed its name to the Canadian Alliance Party, and changed it again to the Conservative Party) held a discussion back when Jean Chretien was still in power. Chretien wanted to put a cap on carbon emissions, but the Reform Party under Stockwell Day thought it was a better idea to just tax carbon emissions instead.

Stephen Harper later replaced Stockwell Day as leader, but because Harper is a puppet of the oil industry (whereas Stockwell Day is a puppet of right wing Christians) they had to abandon the carbon tax idea... which left it to be picked up by the Liberals and touted.

The problem is there really is no other ways to combat climate change. We have to cut carbon emissions somehow, and the only ways to do that is:

• Cap Carbon Emissions.
  
• Tax Carbon Emissions (and hope companies reduce the amount they release).
  
• Make cars more efficient (which we've already done).
  
• Increase sales of more fuel efficient cars like hybrids, electrics, hydrogen, etc. (which we are currently doing).
  
• Phase out coal powered plants by building lots of solar/wind alternatives (which we are doing already).

Which implies we will eventually start taxing/capping greenhouse gases anyway. Its just a matter of who will do it first, Canada or the United States?

Judging by the fact Obama has a majority of Democrats in Congress the USA might beat Canada to it.

White House calls for polar protection

ENVIRONMENT - The Obama administration today called for enhanced protection of the Earth's polar regions, proposing mandatory limits on Antarctic tourism and urging increased environmental research there and in the Canadian Arctic.

Opening a two-week conference of parties to the 50-year-old Antarctic Treaty, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the recent collapse of an Antarctic ice bridge was a stark reminder that the poles are gravely threatened by climate change and human activity.

"With the collapse of an ice bridge that holds in place the Wilkins Ice Shelf, we are reminded that global warming has already had enormous effects on our planet, and we have no time to lose in tackling this crisis," she told the first-ever joint meeting of Antarctic Treaty parties and the Arctic Council at the State Department.

The bridge linking the Wilkins shelf to Antarctica's Charcot and Latady Islands shattered over the weekend after two large chunks of it fell away last year. The shelf, formed by thousands of years of accumulated and compacted snow, had been stable for most of the last century before it began retreating in the 1990s.

Originally the size of Jamaica, the shelf on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula lost 14% of its mass last year alone, according to scientists who are looking at whether global warming is the cause of its breakup.

Average temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula have risen by 3.8 degrees Farenheit over the past half century, the statement said – higher than the average global rise.

Clinton said the Antarctic Treaty – which also bars military use of the continent – could be a model for improved cooperation and coordination in the Arctic, which is not governed by a similar pact.

"The treaty is a blueprint for the kind of international cooperation that will be needed more and more to address the challenges of the 21st century," she said.

Clinton also formally announced that the United States would be proposing mandatory limits on the size of Antarctic cruise ships and the number of passengers they bring ashore at the treaty conference, which begins later Monday in Baltimore and runs through April 17.

If the Arctic and Antarctic melts its predicted the world's sea level would rise 21+ meters and would flood many major cities.

The Antarctic has 4 remaining ice shelfs. As they disappear mainland ice glaciers will slide into the ocean faster and will speed up rising sea levels.

See Also:
Arctic Ice to vanish by 2013
Flooded Cities by 2013?
Greenland ice melting faster than expected
Ancient Ice Shelf snaps free in Canada

37% of Droughts caused by Global Warming

ENVIRONMENT - Global warming is more than a third to blame for a major drop in rainfall that includes a decade-long drought in Australia and a lengthy dry spell in the United States, a scientist said Wednesday.

Peter Baines of Melbourne University in Australia analyzed global rainfall observations, sea surface temperature data as well as a reconstruction of how the atmosphere has behaved over the past 50 years to reveal rainfall winners and losers.

What he found was an underlying trend where rainfall over the past 15 years or so has been steadily decreasing, with global warming 37% responsible for the drop.

"The 37 per cent is probably going to increase if global warming continues," Baines said as he presented his findings at a major climate change conference in Perth Australia.

Four major regions has seen a large decline in rainfall. The affected areas are the continental United States, southeastern Australia, a large region of equatorial Africa and the Altiplano in South America.

At the same time there is two areas in the tropics where rainfall has been increasing – northwestern Australia and the Amazon Basin.

"This is all part of a global pattern where the rainfall is generally increasing in the equatorial tropics and decreasing in the sub-tropics in mid-latitudes," Baines said.

"This is a little bit like the pattern that the (computer) models predict for global warming but this is coming out of the rainfall observations of the past 30 years," added Baines.

The rainfall trend was also accompanied by a trend in global sea surface temperatures (SST), he said, adding he used temperature data going back to 1910.

Sea surface temperatures have also been rising as the atmosphere warms.

"If you take the SST data and analyse that over a long period you can break that up into a variety of components, such a global warming component," he said.

He also looked at the influence on rainfall of major ocean circulation patterns that have a major impact on the world's weather such as the Atlantic conveyor belt that brings warm temperatures to northern Europe.

Two Pacific circulation patterns, including the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, were also studied for their influence on rainfall.

The key in the analysis was to strip out the influence of the El Niño ocean-climate pattern which routinely causes drought in Southeast Asia and Australia and floods in Chile and Peru.

Baines says the Atlantic conveyor belt was 27% to blame for the decreased rainfall, while the two Pacific ocean circulation patterns were 30% responsible.

See Also:
Global Warming in Russia & the North Atlantic
Global Warming: Hurricanes in Europe?
Australian Drought

Ground temperatures rising in Canada

CANADA/ENVIRONMENT - According to a new Canadian study, global warming has caused ground temperatures across the country to rise over the past few decades, in some cases by as much as a few degrees. The study is the first comprehensive assessment of Canada's shallow geothermal resources.

The study shows that thermal energy can be harvested with geo-exchange technologies and used for heating homes and buildings during the winter. This is good news for homeowners using Geothermal Heating Systems.

"There was this realization that we had a heat pulse going into the ground and it was a function of climate warming. It's really one of the best records of climate warming there is in Canada," said study co-author Stephen Grasby, a research scientist at the Geological Survey of Canada. "Depending on where you are ground temperature has increased by a few degrees."

"We actually have this opportunity to retrieve that heat energy trapped by global warming, to use that heat that's gone into the ground to offset future use of non-renewable energy sources," says Grasby.

The study, published in the journal Natural Resource Research, assessed ground temperatures across Canada down to 250 meters to get a sense of the potential resource. The researchers found that the heat energy in the first 50 meters alone was roughly equivalent to the commercially recoverable energy in the oil sands. Thats a lot actually, suggesting that if Canadians wanted to invest in Geothermal technology it would be more profitable than the Alberta Oil Sands.

Low-temperature geothermal technologies, often called geo-exchange systems, are capable of efficiently extracting warmth from the ground at shallow depths to heat homes and building. High-temperature geothermal systems tap heat kilometers below the Earth's surface to produce steam that is used to turn turbines and generate electricity.

"It equates to more than 190 million barrels of oil equivalent," said Grasby. He emphasized that the resource is spread out across the entire country, making it impractical to harvest more than a fraction of the total energy potential.

"But even if a small percentage of it is recoverable it's still going to potentially make a marked impact on renewable-energy supply," said Grasby. "Even if you end up with one or two per cent of it, you've still got one or two million barrels equivalent (of oil). It's a big number."

Temperatures typically increase at lower depth, but the researchers found that the temperature differences at 50 meters, 100 meters and 200 meters are getting smaller because shallower depths are heating up.

"The shallow rock mass of Canada has been shown to store a large component of heat due to recent climatic warming," according to the study.

"This suggests that we may have similar heat energy from the upper 50 meters compared to deeper levels depending on the location and relevant recent history (of) surface temperature changes."

The geological survey is working on another study that will attempt to estimate the portion of shallow geothermal resource that's easily recoverable, such as with heat-pump systems. Another study to be published later this year that will estimate the country's potential for generating electricity from geothermal resources at a temperature of 150 degree Celsius and higher.

Alison Thompson, executive director of the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association, said the geological survey studies are welcome and long overdue, but the analysis is based on ground temperature data collected prior to 1985, which is when funding for the federal geothermal energy program was pulled.

Thompson said new data must be collected to get an accurate estimate and to raise the profile of geothermal energy, which despite its massive potential is largely overlooked in Canada as a renewable source of electricity generation.

The geothermal association, which has set the goal of developing 5,000 megawatts of geothermal power projects in Canada by 2015, has identified 33 areas that need to be studied but has found it challenging to raise the required funding to carry out such studies.

"We feel the rest of the country doesn't understand how big this resource is," said Thompson. "For $1 million we could be off and running and really answer all the questions that politicians have. This would be a game-changer for the industry."

Grasby said interest in the area is growing, particularly in Alberta, where the oil and gas industry's drilling and ground-fracturing expertise can be easily applied to geothermal projects. "You just need a regulatory framework to support it," he says.

Canada is the only country located on the Pacific "Ring of Fire" that has NOT developed its high-temperature geothermal resources on a commercial scale. The United States, Japan, China, Russia all have developed their geothermal resources. Many industry experts argue that geothermal could play an important role in reducing natural gas consumption in the oil sands, making it cheaper to get oil out of the tar sands.

The Pembina Institute, a Calgary think tank, released a report in January that estimated there were 21 billion gigawatt-hours of energy released every year below the surface of Alberta at depths of less than 5 kilometres.

"Even with the conservative assumption that only 0.5 per cent of this potential is recoverable, it represents the equivalent of roughly 14 million megawatts of generating capacity," or 1,100 times the current generating capacity of all existing power plants in Alberta, according to the report.

The report cited lack of public awareness as the key barrier to developing the resource.

The geothermal association hopes to raise that awareness level on April 22nd in Vancouver, where it will hold the industry's first major geothermal energy conference in decades. More than 250 people are expected to attend the event, which is timed to coincide with Earth Day.

Arctic Ice to vanish by 2013

By Ai Lung Nguyen - March 2009.

ENVIRONMENT - The Arctic is warming up so quickly that the region's sea ice cover could vanish as early as summer 2013, decades earlier than previously predicted, says scientist Warwick Vincent.

Vincent, director of the Centre for Northern Studies at Laval University in Quebec, said recent data on the ice cover "appear to be tracking the most pessimistic of the models", which indicate an ice free summer in 2013.

"2013 is starting to look as though it is a lot more reasonable as a prediction. But each year we've been wrong – each year we're finding that it's a little bit faster than expected," says Vincent. "We're losing, irreversibly, major features of the Canadian ice scape and that suggests that these more pessimistic models are really much closer to reality."

The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world and the sea ice cover shrank to a record low in 2007 before growing slightly in 2008. But at the same time 2008 also record warm weather in parts of the arctic, with temperatures rising to 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit) compared to the usual 5 degrees. In 2008 five ice shelves along Ellesmere Island in Canada's Far North, ice which is more than 4,000 years old, shrunk by 23% according to satellite analysis.

In 2004 a major international panel forecast the ice could vanish by 2100. In December 2008 some experts said the summer ice could last until 2020 or 2030.

When the ice disappears shipping companies will be able to make short cuts through the Canadian and Russian Arctic, which also contains enormous reserves of oil and natural gas.

"I was astounded as to how fast the changes are taking place. The extent of open water is something that we haven't experienced in the 10 years that I've been working up there," Vincent said after making a presentation in the Canadian Parliament.

Its now not a question of whether the ice will melt, it a question of when.

Its also a question of what should we do about it? Ice melting in Greenland and the Antarctic could raise sea levels dramatically by 7 meters (22 feet) or more and flood many of the world's port cities.

See Also:
Rising Sea Levels
Climate Change will effect Economy
Ancient ice shelf snaps free from Canada
Global Warming in Russia & the North Atlantic
7 Environmental Problems That Are Worse Than We Thought
The Theory of Rapid Climate Change

Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World

ENVIRONMENTAL - The U.S. National Intelligence Council (NIC) has published its new report "Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World." The report predicts a gloomy future for the United States.

The NIC comes up with these reports every four years. This report is the fourth since 1997, and the most dismal, at least for the United States.

According to the report, by 2025 the European Union will not be able to diversify its energy imports and will still depend on Russian energy sources. By 2025, Europe's energy consumption will go up by 60%, and 57% of all gas reserves will be amassed in Russia, Iraq, and Qatar. Many of the current oil producers will lose their positions, and almost 40% of the world's oil will come from six countries: Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Iraq. For aggregate oil and gas reserves, there will be two great energy powers, Russia and Iran.

Global warming will bring trouble, like floods and draughts, to some countries.

The report predicts that the United States will continue losing its influence. It will remain a powerful state in 2025, but will be less dominant. The same fate will befall the weak US dollar. The void left from America's decline will be filled by Brazil, India, China, and the Korean Peninsular (the report optimistically predicts by that time the two Koreas will merge). The latter three are likely to form a free trade association.

The world will become multipolar, and Western models of economic liberalism and democracy will lose their appeal (which is already happening). The EU will lose its influence and become a "hobbled giant." Wars may break out because of limited resources such as food, freshwater, oil and gas... This sounds horrible.

It would sound even worse if these reports were flawless. In the previous reports for 2010, 2015, and 2020, intelligence analysts made forecasts which contradict what they are writing now. They predicted the growth of the EU's role and influence, and the steady advance of Western economies by about 2% a year through 2010.

These reports are not accurate forecasts but rather a reminder for U.S. leaders what will happen if they do not pursue this or that policy. They offer food for thought and encourage certain ideas. They're not considered accurate.

To see whether the NIC is objective in its reports, we should recall what it is. This is the number one think tank headed by the director of the U.S. National Intelligence Council, Michael McConnell, and conducts medium- and long-term strategic analysis. Its current chairman Thomas Fingar is his direct subordinate. The NIC was set up in 1979.

The NIC submits its reports to all U.S. leaders. National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) is its main commodity. Most of them are classified, but there are always inspired leaks to the press. The council makes what it calls over-the-horizon analysis. Sometimes, it goes far beyond that for political reasons. The NIC, as is often the case with intelligence organizations set up for administrations, always deviates moderately from the party line. With time it dawns on them that they are expected to say what is required of them rather than make predictions.

This makes the NIC's role is supposed to coordinate the analytical reports of all U.S. intelligence centers - the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the political intelligence of the Department of State, intelligence services of the army, air force, and navy, as well as of the border patrol, the departments of the Treasury and Energy, and finally the FBI counterintelligence.

But here is the problem. All these services and departments are trying to take advantage of the NIC, trying to push presidents, departments, or Congress to make the "right" decisions. The NIE and analysis of intelligence information always lead to heated debates for this reason.

So what this tells you is that the different security departments are suddenly worried about global warming, food and water supplies and of course the scarcity of oil. The dire gloom and doom report isn't accurate, but it shows the different US departments are becoming increasingly concerned about these issues.

Sarah Palin hates Polar Bears?

Palin fought safeguards for polar bears with studies by climate change skeptics

United States - The Republican Sarah Palin and her officials in the Alaskan state government drew on the work of at least six scientists known to be skeptical about the dangers and causes of global warming, to back efforts to stop polar bears being protected as an endangered species, the Guardian can disclose. Some of the scientists were funded by the oil industry.

In official submissions to the US government's consultation on the status of the polar bear, Palin and her team referred to at least six scientists who have questioned either the existence of warming as a largely man-made phenomenon or its severity. One paper was partly funded by the US oil company ExxonMobil.

The status of the polar bear has become a battleground in the debate on global warming. In May the US department of the interior rejected Palin's objections and listed the bear as a threatened species, saying that two-thirds of the world's polar bears were likely to be extinct by 2050 due to the rapid melting of the sea ice. Palin, governor of Alaska and the Republican nominee for US vice-president, responded last month by suing the federal government, to try to overturn the ruling. The case will be heard in January.

Though the state of Alaska has no polar bear specialists on its staff, the governor's stance has pitted it against the combined scientific fire-power of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Geological Survey, and world experts on the mammal.

In its lawsuit, Alaska said it opposed the endangered label partly because the listing would "deter activities such as … oil and gas exploration and development". Oil companies recently bid $2.7bn (£1.5bn) for rights to explore the Chuckchi sea, an established polar bear habitat.

The threatened species status might also impede the building of an Alaskan natural gas pipeline, which Palin has called the "will of God". In a letter last year to the US interior secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, she said she believed the polar bear population was "abundant, stable and unthreatened by direct human activity". She opposed the call for the listing because it "did not use the best available scientific and commercial information".

Her own Alaskan review of the science drew on a joint paper by seven authors, four of whom were well-known climate-change deniers. Her paper argued that it was "certainly premature, if not impossible" to link temperature rise in Alaska with human CO2 emissions.

The paper, entitled Polar Bears of Western Hudson Bay and Climate Change, has been criticized for relying on old research and ignoring evidence that Arctic sea-ice is melting at a quickening pace. Walt Meier, a world authority on sea ice, based at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, said: "The paper doesn't measure up scientifically."

One co-author of the paper, Willie Soon, completed the study with funding from ExxonMobil — which has oil operations in Alaska's North Slope — as well as from the American Petroleum Institute. Soon was a former senior scientist with the George C Marshall Institute, which acts as an incubator for climate-change scepticism. The institute has received $715,000 in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998.

In May, ExxonMobil announced that it was no longer funding Marshall and other groups linked with climate-change denier views. It said this was to avoid "distraction from the need to provide energy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions" and stressed that the company did not "control the research itself".

Another co-author of the document was Sallie Baliunas. In 2003 she and Soon were criticized when it was revealed that a joint paper had been partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute. Thirteen scientists whom they cited issued a rebuttal and several editors of the journal Climate Research resigned because of the "flawed peer review". A third co-author of the polar bear study, David Legates, a professor at Delaware University, is also associated with the Marshall Institute.

The citation by Palin and her officials prompted complaints from Congress. One member, Brad Miller, dubbed the polar bear study phony science.
Palin told Miller: "Attempts to discredit scientists...simply because their analyses do not agree with your views, would be a disservice to this country." Miller now says that Palin's use of the paper shows she differs greatly from John McCain, the Republican presidential contender, who has pressed for scientific integrity. "Turning to the cottage industry of scientists who are funded because they spread doubt about global warming is not integrity," Miller said.

Palin's submission consulted J Scott Armstrong, a specialist in forecasting, who regards the global warming issue as "public hysteria".

Two other climate change deniers were cited. One was Syun-Ichi Akasofu, formerly director of the International Arctic Research Centre, in Alaska, who argues that climate change could be a hangover from the "little ice age". He is a founding director of the Heartland Institute, a thinktank that has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Timothy Ball, a retired professor from Winnipeg, is cited for his climate and polar bear research. He has called human-made global warming "the greatest deception in the history of science". He has worked with both Friends of Science, and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, which each had funding from energy firms.

Kert Davies, research director at Greenpeace US, said the state of Alaska under Palin's leadership had relied on scholars who argue the opposite view to that of the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community. "It shows that she is completely out of touch with the urgency of the climate crisis."

Last month Palin agreed that the Alaskan climate was changing but added: "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made." She later tried to retract the statement.

McCain ignores environment and climate change

In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention Thursday night, presidential candidate John McCain mentioned climate change and global warming exactly zero times. He never even uttered the "E" word (environment).

It used to be that McCain's bipartisan work combating global warming was a point of pride for the GOP senator. That was before he selected VP candidate Sarah Palin, who is a global warming denier and is passionate about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The closest McCain got to the climate was in talking about energy:

We'll produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells off-shore, and we'll drill them now. We'll drill them now.

We'll -- we'll -- my friends, we'll build more nuclear power plants. We'll develop clean-coal technology. We'll increase the use of wind, tide, solar, and natural gas. We'll encourage the development and use of flex-fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles.

Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. But Americans know better than that.

We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and restore the health of our planet.

Asian pollution may cause American climate shift

WASHINGTON - Pollution from Asian coal power plants could create summer hot spots in the central United States and southern Europe by mid-century, US climate scientists reported on Thursday. The full report is available online at www.climatescience.gov and was released by the US Climate Change Science Program.

Unlike the long-lived greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, the particle and gas pollution cited in this report only stays in the air for a few days or weeks but its warming effect stays over the long term.

"We found that these short-lived pollutants have a greater influence on the Earth's climate throughout the 21st century than previously thought," said Hiram Levy of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"By 2050, two of the three climate models we use found that changes in short-lived pollutants will contribute 20 percent of the predicted global warming. By 2100, that figure goes up to 25 percent."

The short-lived pollution that can cause long-term warming comes from soot, also known as the black carbon particles that result from fires, and sulfate particles, which are emitted by power plants. Soot particles are dark and absorb heat; sulfates are light and reflect heat, actually cooling things down.

Asian soot and sulfate pollution is likely to make for hotter, drier summers in the American Midwest and the Mediterranean region of southern Europe, Levy said, adding that heating and drying effects are not expected to hit Asia.

The reason for the expected pollution-related warming trend is that sulfate pollution, which has been linked to respiratory problems, is expected to decrease dramatically while soot pollution is forecast to continue increasing in Asia.

Ground-level ozone emitted by US transport vehicles is also a factor, the scientists said.

These pollutants have usually been dealt with as threats to air quality, but should also be considered for their impact on climate change, said Drew Shindell, a climate expert at NASA.

Carbon dioxide, which spurs global warming and is emitted from natural and human-made sources, still is going to dominate the climate change picture in the coming century, but because modern societies are built to emit lots of this substance, change is likely to be slow, Shindell said.

Targeting these air pollutants now makes sense, because of their role in the quality of the air people breathe as well as their impact on global warming, he said.

"It's no substitute for targeting CO2 (carbon dioxide), which in the long run is the main contributor to global warming and has to be tackled, but ... the shorter-term pollutants can have a very large impact," Shindell said.

Climate change could dramatically hurt the US economy.

Greenland ice melting faster than expected

When scientists make a prediction they usually make several: A conservative estimate and a seemingly wilder number which is frequently more accurate. The conservative estimate is really more the press and the naysayers, and the more other number is either scary or delightfully good news, depending on the situation.

So when a group of scientists comes forward and says that Greenland's ice sheet is melting faster than expected, you have to ask... were they comparing it to the conservative estimate or the supposedly-more-accurate one? As you will see below scientists don't agree all the time.

A group of NASA and university scientists are warning the steady loss of the Greenland ice sheet could raise sea levels three times higher than estimated. In a report in the journal Nature Geoscience, the study challenges current predictions about the rate at which the massive ice sheet is predicted to melt over the next century as greenhouse gases rise and temperatures warm.

The report's authors say the loss of the ice mass could raise global sea levels by up to five millimetres a year – almost three times the current estimates set by an international authority on the issue. (Basically its one group of scientists saying the other group was using a really conservative estimate.)

"We're showing that the geologic record shows that in the past, ice sheets have melted much faster than we're predicting at the end of this century," Anders Carlson, a geologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The team of researchers, including scientists from NASA and the University of British Columbia, used geologic data to study the Laurentide ice sheet, the last massive ice dome to cover much of the northern hemisphere.

Faron Anslow, a glaciologist at UBC in Vancouver, said they studied marine and terrestrial records to determine how fast the Laurentide sheet melted and if it might predict the fate of the Greenland sheet.

The team discovered that the ancient ice cap, which spanned 1.7 million square kilometres, went through two periods of rapid melting. The first occurred about 9,000 years ago and again about 7,600 years ago, when there was increased solar radiation.

"The ice sheet was existing in a pretty warm climate and what we show is that that sunlight was enough to melt the ice sheet away very rapidly," he said.

They also found that the melt led to a speedy rise in sea levels of almost two centimetres a year.

Anslow said the temperatures at the time of the Laurentide melt are similar to what's expected for Greenland by the end of this century, suggesting it could undergo an equally rapid melt.

The Laurentide sheet, which was almost twice the size of its Greenland cousin, was at its largest about 22,000 years ago when it began its slow decline due to warming temperatures.

It virtually disappeared about 6,000 years ago.

Carlson says that if the Greenland sheet completely disappeared, it would raise sea levels by seven metres, adding that even the slightest increases could threaten hundreds of millions of people in coastal communities.

"The word 'glacial' used to imply that something was very slow," co-author Allegra LeGrande of the New York-based NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies wrote in the report. "This new evidence ... indicates that 'glacial' is anything but slow.

"This finding shows the potential for ice to disappear quickly, given the right push."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts a maximum sea level rise over the next 100 years of up to 10 centimetres, based mainly on the expansion of the oceans through warming.

Anders said it doesn't take into account contributions from ice sheet melt.

"They now predict a half-metre sea level rise with most of that coming from the expansion of the ocean due to warming and very little of that coming from ice sheet melting," he said.

"Ice sheet melting could be a much bigger component, so these values should be seen as low estimates."

Anders said science hasn't been able to get an accurate picture of how fast ice sheets melt as a result of climate change until now. The scientific team used sophisticated computer modelling and terrestrial records to track the sheet's disappearance, linking it in time to warming temperatures.

In 2006 a huge iceshelf snapped in northern Canada, surprising scientists at the sheer speed it disappeared. In 2007 the Greenland ice sheet retreated by a record amount and that record will likely be broken again in the future.

Ice shelf in the Arctic collapses

A chunk of Antarctic ice about the size of Manhattan suddenly collapsed, putting an even greater portion of glacial ice at risk, scientists said today.

Satellite images show the runaway disintegration of a 414-square-kilometre chunk in western Antarctica, which started Feb. 28. It was the edge of the Wilkins ice shelf and has been there for hundreds, maybe 1,500 years.

This is the result of global warming, said British Antarctic Survey scientist David Vaughan.

Because scientists noticed satellite images within hours, they diverted satellite cameras and even flew an airplane over the ongoing collapse for rare pictures and video.

"It's an event we don't get to see very often," said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. "The cracks fill with water and slice off and topple... That gets to be a runaway situation."

While icebergs naturally break away from the mainland, collapses like this are unusual but are happening more frequently in recent decades, Vaughan said. The collapse is similar to what happens to hardened glass when it is smashed with a hammer, he said.

The rest of the Wilkins ice shelf, which is about twice the size of Prince Edward Island, is holding on by a narrow beam of thin ice. Scientists worry that it too may collapse. Larger, more dramatic ice collapses occurred in 2002 and 1995.

Vaughan had predicted the Wilkins shelf would collapse about 15 years from now. The part that recently gave way makes up about four per cent of the overall shelf, but it is an important part that can trigger further collapse.

There is still a chance the rest of the ice shelf will survive until next year because this is the end of the Antarctic summer and colder weather is setting in, Vaughan said.

Scientists said they are not concerned about a rise in sea level from the latest event, but say it is a sign of worsening global warming.

Such occurrences are "more indicative of a tipping point or trigger in the climate system," said Sarah Das, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.

"These are things that are not re-forming," Das said. "So once they're gone, they're gone."

Climate in Antarctica is complicated and more isolated from the rest of the world.

Much of the continent is not warming and some parts are even cooling, Vaughan said. However, the western peninsula, which includes the Wilkins ice shelf, juts out into the ocean and is warming. This is the part of the continent where scientists are most concern about ice-melt triggering sea level rise.

Ontario's Climate change czar

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has appointed a climate change czar to lead Ontario's fight against global warming.

Hugh MacLeod's job will be to make sure the government's numerous environmental plans – from banning conventional light bulbs to phasing out coal-fired power plants – are actually carried out.

MacLeod has already quietly started setting up Ontario's Climate Change Secretariat but the provincial government had been planning to announce it on March 29 – when people around the world turn off lights for Earth Hour to symbolize their commitment to protecting the environment.

MacLeod, 60, isn't a hemp-wearing environmentalist, but a man of business with a track record in the health-care field for bringing diverse groups together with government to work for change.

The government's action plan on climate change, released last summer, is about pushing Ontario to do what it can to mitigate the environmental crisis.

Environmental groups have criticized the government for talking a lot, but not delivering much on climate change.

"The secretariat is the premier's recognition that you can have the loftiest climate change goals but if you want to get anything done you have to have a strong focus and strong leadership," a government source said.

MacLeod will hold "climate change results" meetings every five weeks with the premier, senior politicians and bureaucrats to outline what has been done to date and what has to happen next, the source said.

It's a strategy that has worked elsewhere. British Columbia, which has a Climate Action Secretariat, came out with a green provincial budget two weeks ago that included North America's first full-fledged carbon tax.

"(The B.C. secretariat) was central to giving climate change the priority it had in the budget," said Julia Langer, global threats director at the World Wildlife Federation Canada.

It can be a "crack the whip" sort of role if a particular ministry isn't moving on something, but more often than not, climate change issues cut across many ministries and a person managing, from above it all, can make sure everyone is pulling in the same direction.

This is just what Ontario needs, Langer said.

"We had a climate plan announced in the summer and, from a tangible perspective, what's emerged from that? It's bits and pieces and what we need is a massive scale up," she said referring to a series of government announcements in June, July and August about various initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"(A secretariat) has the ability to knock some heads together and make things happen because often they're all off on their own little planets and orbits and they don't necessarily work toward the same goal," Langer said.

While the idea of a climate change secretariat is welcome, Langer said she'll wait to see Ontario's results before cheering too loudly.

"The clock is tick, tick, ticking. We have a climate change crisis on our hands," she said.

By end of April, the secretariat is expected to be up and running.

It's not about setting up a big bureaucracy though. It will be "a small guerrilla outfit with strong vision that can drive through ministries," a source said.

MacLeod reports directly to McGuinty and, as such, has the clout of being the premier's man. As head of the climate change secretariat, MacLeod's top priorities will be making sure Ontario's coal-fired power plants close by 2014, which is already well after the original Liberal promise to close them by 2007; protect large-scale areas for caribou habitat in the Boreal Forest; and build more rapid transit, the source said.

These are key planks in the Liberal plan to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change by 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2014, 15 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050.

Ontario's coal-fired power plants are the largest producers of greenhouse gases and closing them by 2014 will reduce the province's annual emissions by 30 megatonnes, according to the government.

Ontario's northern Boreal Forest stores vast amounts of carbon and provides a buffer for species to adapt to changing climate, but it is under threat from industry.

Each year, millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide are released through logging.

The province's transit plan, MoveOntario 2020, includes 902 kilometres of new or improved rapid transit.

It will take 300 million annual car trips off GTA roads, cut smog and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 10 megatonnes by 2020, according to the government.