Pollution soaring to crisis levels in Arctic

[jpak]

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=266461&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/

Researchers have uncovered compelling evidence that indicates Earth's most vulnerable regions -- the North and South poles -- are poised on the brink of a climatic disaster.

The scientists, at an atmospheric monitoring station in the Norwegian territory of Svalbard, have found that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere near the North Pole are now rising at an unprecedented pace.

In 1990, this key cause of global warming was rising at a rate of one part per million (ppm). Recently, that rate reached 2ppm per year. Now, scientists at the Mount Zeppelin monitoring station have discovered it is rising at between 2,5ppm and 3ppm.

"The fact that our data now show acceleration in the rise of carbon-dioxide level is really a source for concern," said Professor Johan Strom, of Stockholm University's department of applied environmental science, which runs the Mount Zeppelin station. "The increase is also seen at other stations, but our Zeppelin data show the strongest increase."

<much more>

[gristy]

1. Referring to CO2 as "pollution" is odd

In fact, I've never ever read or heard of global warming being due to "pollution". I hope this isn't the start of a trend.

[Odin2005]

2. Wouldn't getting CO2 reffered to as pollution would be a good thing?

[gristy]

3. No, it trivializes it.

Global warming and all its implications is to "pollution" as a nuclear strike is to a conventional bomb.

[Odin2005]

4. Ah, OK, Gotcha.

I was thinking in terms of Big Coal propagandizing about "clean coal", if CO2 was called a pollutant the "clean coal" meme wouldn't work.

[phantom power]

6. On the other hand, *not* calling it pollution...

allows people to use the extremely fraudulent phrase "clean coal" and get away with it.

[bemildred]

5. You gotta wonder ...

Is this from all that permafrost and all those peat bogs starting to warm up? If it is, it's going to be a short, bumpy ride.

[hatrack]

7. Oh, not to worry - the W. Siberian peat formations don't hold that much

Only the equivalent in methane (in terms of capacity to absorb heat radiation) of a trillion-odd tons or so of CO2.

I'm sure that the nation's chief Environmental Steward will have an exciting new technology ready to unveil by this year's Earth Day photo-op which will save us all from these GHGs and their consequences!!

:eyes:

[bemildred]

8. Well, the methane is what worries me.

Methane converts to CO2 over 100 years of so, removing Oxygen from the atmosphere in the process. Are we ready for air with a partial Oxygen pressure equivant to say, 14000 ft. by say 2100? Fortunately, I'll be dead by then, so I won't hear the curses of such of our descendants as still survive.

[hatrack]

9. And isn't methane something like, oh, 20+ times more effective than CO2?

Something like that . . ,

[bemildred]

10. For the greenhouse effect, yes ... nt

[TheMadMonk]

12. 200 times IIRC actually.

n/t

[jpak]

13. It's between 13 and 56 depending on the time scale used...

n/t

[phantom power]

11. They'll spare no expense...

to develop state-of-the-art vehicles for scientists to study climate catastrophe in. With cup-holders and stuff!